(1.) THE question raised in this petition is whether finding recorded by the v. Additional District Judge, Hardoi that the notice terminating the tenancy has not been waived, is a correct finding or not. In order to appreciate this controversy, reference may be made to the notice dated 19 -5 -1976 sent by opposite parties 2 to 4 terminating the tenancy of the Petitioners. Another notice was issued by the landlords to the tenants dated 15th June, 1976 which is Ext. 7. The two notices are on record and this fact has not been disputed. The trial Court recorded a finding that notice dated 19 -5 -1976 was waived by notice dated 15 -6 -1976 and hence the suit filed by the landlord was liable to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the decree passed by the trial Court the landlord filed a revision application under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act. The v. Additional District Judge by his order dated 20 -8 -1979 held that notice dated 19 -5 -1976 has not been waived. After recording this finding, the Plaintiffs suit for ejectment of the Defendants was decreed by the Additional District Judge. The Defendants aggrieved by the decree passed by the Additional District Judge have come up to this Court by means of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) THE first notice dated 19 -5 -1976 is on record of this petition as Annexure land the second notice dated 15 -6 -1976 is Annexure 2 to the writ petition. A perusal of paragraph 7 of Annexure 1 would indicate that the Defendants were required to vacate the premises after service of notice terminating the tenancy. The same averment is to be found in paragraph 7 of the notice dated 15 -6 -1976, Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition. The trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 22 -2 -1978 while recording its finding on issue No. 4 observed as follows:
(3.) THE trial Court has committed an obvious error in not framing proper issues. Sub -rule (5) of Rule 1 of Order XIV of the Code of Civil Procedure may be reproduced as follows: