BISHAMBHAR DAYAL Vs. AMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this revision petition under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, the plaintiff revisionists challenged the judgment and decree dated 30th March, 1984, passed by the Special Judge (E.C. Act), Etah, exercising the jurisdiction as Small Cause Court, whereby the suit of the plaintiff for eviction of the defendant respondent from the tenanted accommodation has been dismissed.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The said suit was filed for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment on the ground that the tenanted property was constructed in the year 1976 and the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, did not apply to it and the tenancy of the defendant having been determined by a notice dated 6th March, 1982, he was liable to be evicted.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revisionists contended that the service of a notice terminating the tenancy of the defendant was admitted by the defendant and, therefore, the burden was on the defendant to prove that the notice was not valid. He relied upon Para 6 of the plaint which stated as under :-