JUDGMENT
Rajesh Tandon, J.
1. Heard Sri J.P. Joshi, counsel for the revisionists and Sri Ramji Srivastava, counsel for the respondent.
2. By the present civil revision filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, the revisionists have prayed for setting aside the order dated 20.07.2004 passed by the Judge Small Cause Courts/District Judge, Dehradun.
3. Briefly State, the suit was filed by Sri K.M. Agarwal-plaintiff being S.C.C. Suit No. 17 of 2002 stating therein that he is the owner of the property known as Manmohan Cottage, Mall Road, Mussoorie, District-Dehradun and the defendants were month to moth tenant of half portion at ground floor and second-floor of the aforesaid property to the extent of Rs. 500 per month.
4. The plaintiff-respondent has filed an application under Section 21(8) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for enhancement of rent in the Court of Additional District Magistrate, Dehradun being Case No. 3 of 1998.
5. The Prescribed Authority vide order dated 26.02.2002 partly allowed the application filed under Section 21(8) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and enhanced the rent to the extent of Rs. 500/- per month w.e.f. 1st April, 1998.
6. The appeal was preferred by the landlord against the said order being Appeal No. 31 of 2002, which was decided on 5th June, 2002. The District Judge has partly allowed the appeal and modified and enhanced the rent of the premises to the extent of Rs. 9000/- per month.
7. The plaintiff-respondent has sent a notice on 21th June, 2002 for the recovery of the rent as well as for eviction of the defendants-revisionists. Relief sought by the plaintiff-respondent is quoted below:
(A) That a decree for recovery of Rs. 4,75,200/- towards arrears of rent w.e.f. 1-4-1998 till 24-8-2002 be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant along with pendentelite and future interest at 15% p.a. on the amount.
(B) The possession of the premises detailed in the schedule be got delivered to the plaintiff by ejectment of the defendant therefrom.
(C) That mesne profit @ Rs. 9000/ per month be decreed in favour of the plaintiff w.e.f. 25-8-2002 to 9-9-2002. The plaintiff is entitled to future mesne profit @ Rs. 9000/ per month till actual vacant physical possession is delivered
(D) The cost of the notice amounting to Rs. 550/ be awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
8. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, the plaintiff-respondent has alleged that U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is not applicable to the building in dispute as the rent is more than Rs. 2000/- per month.
9. The defendants-revisionists have contested the case by filing a written statement, where in paragraph 6, it has been admitted that the rent was enhanced by the appellate Court and thereafter, the same was confirmed in Writ Petition No. 667 of 2002 and Writ petition No. 668 of 2002. The writ petition was dismissed on 27.07.2004.
10. Judge Small Cause Court has framed as many as two points for determination. Point No. 1 was to the effect as to whether there has been any default in the payment of the rent. Point No. 2 was to the effect as to whether the plaintiff is entitled for any relief.
11. While deciding Point No. 1, the finding was recorded by the Judge Small Cause Courts that the enhancement under Section 21 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 having been confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court, therefore, the rent has become due to the extent of Rs. 4,75,200/-.
12. Court below has observed that no amount has been deposited by the defendants-revisionists. However, so far as the rent part is concerned, admittedly the same is more than Rs. 2000/- and as such the same is fully exempted under Section 2(2)(g) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Section 2(2)(g) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 reads as under:
[(g) any building, whose monthly rent exceeds two thousand rupees.
13. Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has submitted that the possession has already been handed over by the defendants-revisionists.
14. In view of the aforesaid, since the defendants-revisionists were in arrears of rent and have not paid the same despite the notice of demand, therefore, the defendants are liable to be evicted.
15. Further, since U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is not applicable to the building in dispute, the suit of the plaintiff, therefore, has rightly been decreed.
16. Scope of interference under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act has been interpreted by the Apex Court from time to time. It is not an appellate jurisdiction and therefore, the findings of fact cannot be interfered.
17. In Harshvardhan Chokkani v. Bhupendra N. Patel 2002 SCFBRC 344, the Apex Court has observed as under:
Nonetheless, the High Court is exercising the revisional power which in its very nature is a truncated power. The width of the powers of the Revisional Court cannot be equated with the power of the Appellate Court. In examining the legally and the proprietary of the order under challenge, what is required to be seen by the High Court is whether it is in violation of any statutory provision or a binding precedent or suffers from misreading of the evidence or omission to consider relevant clinching evidence or where the inference drawn from the facts proved in such that no reasonable person could arrive at or the like, it is only in such situations that interference by the High Court in revision in a finding of fact will be justified. Mere possibility of a different view is no ground to interfere in exercise of revisional power. From the above discussion, it is clear that none of the aforementioned reasons exists in this case to justify interference by the High Court.
18. In view of the above, revision lacks merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs.