JUDGMENT R.P. Misra, J.
1. Heard Sri R.P. Goyal, learned senior counsel for the revisionist assisted by Sri Manish Goyal, and Sri Prakash Gupta, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent.
2. The first notice dated 18.8.1992 was given by the landlady, plaintiff-respondent, for terminating the tenancy of defendant No. 1 Kewal Krishna Anand. The second notice dated 2.5.1993 was given by Sri M.C. Gupta, advocate on behalf of the landlady demanding arrears of rent and-terminating tenancy of defendant No. 1, Kewal Krishna Anand. The learned II-Additional District Judge, Agra, framed the following issues :
"(1) Whether there existed a relationship of landlady and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1?
(2) Whether there existed a relationship of landlady and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant No. 2?
(3) Whether the defendant No. 2 is the sub-tenant as alleged by the plaintiff?
(4) Whether the defendant No. 2 is liable to be evicted?
(5) To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?"
3. Issue Nos. 1 and 2 were decided in favour of the revisionist and it was held that there existed relationship of landlady and tenant the plaintiff and defendant No. 2, Mahendra Kumar. Issue No. 3 was also decided in favour of the revisionist and it was held that the defendant No. 2, revisionist cannot be held to be sub-tenant of defendant No. 1, Kewal Krishna Anand in the shop in dispute. However, issue No. 4 was decided against the revisionist and it was held that the revisionist is liable to be evicted in consequence of the notice terminating his tenancy, which has been served upon him by the plaintiff. Issue No. 5 was also decided against the revisionist and it was held that revisionist, Mahendra Kumar is liable to pay rent/mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 2,000 per month from July, 1993.
4. The IInd Additional District Judge vide impugned order dated 20.3.1998 decreed the suit of the plaintiff with costs and directed that revisionist shall hand over the vacant possession of the property in dispute to the plaintiff within 60 days from the date of the judgment.
5. The learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that there was no authorization of Sri M.C. Gupta, advocate by the landlady to terminate the tenancy of the revisionist - Mahendra Kumar. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the revisionist relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ishwar Bhai C. Patel alias Bachu Behera and Anr. v. Harihar Behera and Anr., 1999 (35) ALR 755. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Abdul Jalil v. Haji Abdul Jalil, AIR 1974 All 402. In the aforesaid judgment of this Court, following types of notices have been considered and it has been clearly held as to which type of notice is according to law or not :
"(A) You are hereby informed or you are given this notice that your tenancy shall stand determined on the expiry of thirty days from the date of service of this notice.
(B) You are informed that your tenancy will determine on the expiry of thirty days from the date of service of this notice and you are called upon to vacate the premises on the expiry of the said period of notice failing which a suit for ejectment shall be filed against you.
(C) I do not want to keep you as my tenant. You are therefore, given this notice and required to vacate the premises on the expiry of thirty days from the date of service of this notice on you.
(D) Your tenancy is terminated with effect from toady and you are required to vacate the premises on the expiry of thirty days from the date of service of this notice on you.
(E) Your tenancy is terminated and you are required to vacate, the premises on the expiry of thirty days from the date of service of this notice failing which a suit for ejectment shall be filed against you.
(F) You are given this notice to quit or vacate the premises on the expiry of thirty days from the date of service of this notice failing which a suit for ejectment shall be filed against you.
(G) You are required to vacate the premises on the expiry of thirty days from the date of receipt of this notice."
6. The learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the aforesaid judgment and submitted that the illustration Nos. E and F will apply to the present case. The learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the illustration No. G is applicable to the present case. In paragraph 20 of the aforesaid judgment it has been held as follows :
"G. A notice of this type simply contains a demand for possession. It does not evidently purport to terminate the tenancy either expressly or impliedly. In the absence of anything further so as to give a clear and explicit intimation to the tenant that if he remains in occupation of the premises after the date mentioned therein, he will become a trespasser, it may not be treated even as a valid notice to quit in view of the observations made by the Full Bench in (1885) ILR 7 All 899 (FB)."
7. The submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist has got force and in view of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that the aforesaid notice given to the revisionist is invalid.
8. The second question, which arises for consideration is that at what rate the rent and mesne profit will be paid. The IInd Additional District Judge, Agra, held that the revisionist is liable to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 2,000 per month for the accommodation in dispute as husband of the landlady appeared in the witness box and admitted that similar shop adjacent to the accommodation in dispute was let out at the rate of Rs. 2,000. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the accommodation in dispute was given on rent in the year 1989. So far as adjacent shop is concerned, it was given on rent in the year 1994 at the rate of 2,000 per month. Therefore, there is no escalation in the price of rent. The arguments made by learned counsel for the revisionist has got no force.
9. In the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of D.C. Oswal v. V. K. Subbiah and Ors., ARC 1992 (1) 335 and in the judgment of this Court in the case of Chiranjt Lal v. Kunwar Prasad and Anr., AIR 1963 All 249, it has been held that the mesne profit can be escalated maximum by 50%.
10. In view of what has been stated above, the revision is allowed. The order dated 20.3.1998 is set aside. The suit for ejectment filed by the landlady is dismissed. It is held that the revisionist is liable to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 1,000 per month with effect from 1.3.1992 till date and rent/damages at the rate of Rs. 2,500 per month with effect from 24.4.2003. The amount already deposited by the revisionist may be adjusted accordingly.
11. However, there will be no order as to cost.