MOHD SIDDIQ Vs. IIND ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE UNNAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FEELING aggrieved by an order dismissing the revision of the petitioner-tenant filed by him under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, affirming the decree of the trial court for his ejectment from the premises in dispute and recovery of arrears of rent for damages for use and occupation, he has now approached this Court seeking redress praying for the quashing thereof.

(2.) I have heard Sri Z. Zilani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. N. Khare, learned counsel for the contesting respondents and have carefully perused the record.

(3.) THE trial court on an appraisal of evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the rate of rent on which the premises In dispute had been let out was only Rs. 8.50 and not Rs. 15 as claimed by the plaintiff. It was further found that the defendant had not tendered or paid the rent for the period prior to 1.4.1978 and consequently, the rent which had remained in arrears on the date of the service of the notice contemplated under Section 20 (2) (a) of the U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 was for a period of more than four months and consequently defendant was a defaulter as contemplated under the aforesaid provision. THE combined notice of demand and termination of tenancy sent by the plaintiff which had been duly served on the defendant petitioner was held to be valid in law. THE findings of the trial court were affirmed by the revisional court.