(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15-12-1988 passed by respondent No. 2 decreeing the suit for arrears of rent, ejectment and damages against the petitioner and the judgment dated 25-7-1991 passed by respondent No 1 affirming the said order in revision.
(2.) THE petitioner is a tenant of the disputed, accommodation. Respondent No. 3 filed 6u.it No. 101 of 1987 lot arrears of rent, ejectment and damages against him on the allegations that a notice dated 24-8 1987 was sent to him demanding arrears of rant which was due since 5-3-1983 and terminating his tenancy but the defendant did not comply with the said notice and gave a wrong reply on 15th September, 1987. THE disputed accommodation was not covered by the provisions of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. THE defendant was liable for ejectment as he committed default in payment of arrears of rent. THE petitioner contested the suit on the allegations that the suit was filed by Mahant Sita Ram Das and he had no right to file the suit He had not committed default in payment of arrears of rent. THE- rent was not due since 5-3-1983 and the notice sent on behalf of the plaintiff was invalid Tins Judge, Small Causes Court decreed the suit on the finding that the defendant committed default in payment of arrears of rent and accordingly decreed the suit, THE order has been affirmed in revision by respondent No. 1.
(3.) THIS provision contemplates that a demand notice be served upon the tenant by a landlord to the tenant regarding arrears of rent which on the date of the notice is not less than four months. The provision does not contemplate that he should further indicate the consequences In case the amount is not paid within one month. In Dr. Bhupeshwar Sahi v. State of U. P., 1988 (1) ARC 134, it was held that under section 20 (2) fa) of the Act only demand has to be made and a composite notice of demand and termination of tenancy can be given and such notice is a valid one.