- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the defendant-tenant/ revisionist.
(2.) This revision under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, has been filed praying to set aside the judgment dated 28.09.2019 in S.C.C. Suit No.10 of 2008 (Thakur Banshivat Ji Maharaj Birajman Banshibat Brindaban vs. Radhey Shyam Sharma) passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.6, Mathura, whereby the S.C.C. Suit has been decreed.
(3.) Briefly stated facts of the present case are that undisputedly the plaintiff-respondent is the owner and landlord of the disputed property, in which the defendant-revisionist is the tenant. According to the defendant-revisionist, his grand-father was the tenant and the tenancy was succeeded by him. The plaintiff-respondent issued a notice dated 19.07.2000 whereby he determined the tenancy and asked the defendant-tenant to vacate the disputed property, handover its vacant possession and also pay arrears of rent which was stated to be due from May, 1999. Despite notice the defendant-tenant has not vacated the disputed property. He also did not pay arrears of rent. The plaintiff-respondent again sent a notice dated 09.04.2008 to the defendant-tenant but it was not complied with. In the aforesaid two notices, the plaintiff-respondent clearly mentioned that the rent is Rs.3000/- per month. Since the notices were not complied with by the defendant-tenant/ revisionist, therefore, the plaintiff-respondent filed S.C.C. Suit No.10 of 2008 (Thakur Banshivat Ji Maharaj Birajman Banshibat Brindaban through Sevayatgan vs. Radhey Shyam Sharma), which has been decreed by the impugned judgment dated 28.09.2019. Aggrieved with this judgment, the defendant-tenant/ revisionist has filed the present petition.;