- (1.)Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned Counsel for the defendant-revisionist and Sri Ashish Agrawal, leaned Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent. The revision has been preferred by the tenant under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 against the judgment, order and decree of the Court below dated 30.4.2011 passed in S.C.C. Suit No. 8 of 2007, Arvind Kumar Shorawal v. Ram Vilas Gupta, whereby the suit of the plaintiff respondent for arrears of rent and eviction has been decreed.
(2.)Sri Pradeep Kumar, has raised the following four points:
(i) The notice was not duly served and therefore, the suit on its basis is not maintainable;

(ii) That the tenanted portion is an old construction on which U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is applicable;

(iii) The defendant revisionist is entitle to the benefit of section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 which has wrongly been denied; and

(iv) The damages awarded @ Rs. 100/- per month is excessive and without any basis.

(3.)The Court below has dealt with the service of notice while considering issue No. 4. The notice determining the tenancy of the defendant revisionist was issued on 13.11.2007 and it is said to have been served by refusal upon the defendant revisionist on 19.11.2007. It was sent at the correct address by registered post.