SATYANARAIN DUBEY Vs. CHANDRA BHUSHAN MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. S. Sinha, J. Heard Sri D. K. Singh, holding brief of Sri R. N. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff- applicant.

(2.) INSTANT revision, under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, is directed against the decree and judgment rendered by the VIII Additional District Judge, Varanasi (exercising powers of Judge, Small Causes) in Original Suit No. 1 of 1987 whereby the suit of the applicant so far as it related. to the relief of eviction of the opposite party from the disputed premises, which is, indisputably subject to the provisions of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter called the Act, has been dismissed. 3 The court below has categorically found it, as a matter of fact, that the notice on behalf of the applicant demanding the arrears of rant was not served on the opposite party. On this finding the court below has hei J that there was no default on the part of the opposite party in payment of the rent as envisaged in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act. 4. Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Act provides that save as provided in sub-section (2), no suit shall be instituted for the eviction of a tenant from the building notwithstanding the determination of bis tenancy by efflux of time or on the expiration of the notice to quit or in any other manner. In this case the plaintiff claimed exemption from tho bar against the institution of his suit on the ground of default on the part of tho defendant as contemp lated in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act, which was, however, not been found to be correct. Once it is found that there is no default on the part of the tenant in paying to the landlord arrears of rent, the bar against the institution of the suit for eviction of the tenant based on the ground of his default of payment of arrears of rent becomes operative, and the suit has to fail. 5. Learned counsel has, very fairly and rightly, conceded that the finding of the court below that the notice on behalf of the applicant demand ing arrears of rent from the opposite party has not been served is a finding of fact and is not open to challenge in this revision. The finding of fact recorded by the trial court may be assailed in revision where it is demonstrat ed that it is perverse or based on inadmissible evidence or has been arrived at without considering the evidence which is legally admissible. This is not the case here. Therefore, the court below did not act contrary to law in denying to the applicant the relief of eviction of the opposite party. 6. In the result, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed summarily. Petition dismissed. .