UDAY UMESH LALIT,J. - (1.) *** (a) Leave granted. (b) This Appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 27.08.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Civil Revision No.104 of 1992. (c) On 03.05.1971 a notice was issued by the Appellants terminating the tenancy of the Respondents in respect of premises no.5, Khandhari Bazar Lane, Thana Kaiserbagh, Lucknow and demanding rent for the period from 05.01.1970 to 04.05.1971 @ Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) per month. This notice was admittedly received by the Respondents. Thereafter, notice dated 05.02.1974 was issued by the Appellants demanding payment of rent in respect of subsequent period viz. 5.11.1972 to 5.2.1974. Another notice was issued on 15.04.1974 which made reference to the earlier notices and stated as under:- "4. That you have avoided service of this notice when sent on earlier occasion and so this notice is being sent to you both under registered A/D as well as also under certificate of posting and Express Delivery under certificate of posting and a telegram to the following effect is also being served on you demanding rent:-?
(2.) Thereafter, SCC Suit No.22 of 1976 was filed by the Appellants in the court of Additional District Judge, Lucknow for recovery of rent, compensation for use and occupation as well as for ejectment of the Respondents. Considering the pleadings, following issues were framed on 03.11.1978:- "1. Whether there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties? If yes, its effect. 2. Whether the plaintiff due to selling off the property, cannot maintain the suit? 3. Whether the plaintiff's suit is maintainable? 4. Whether there was agreed rent between the parties? If yes, then it's effect. 5. What relief, if any, the plaintiff deserves? Three more issues were added on 09.04.1981 as under:- "6. Whether the notice of Section 106 T.P. Act, 1882 and under Section 20(2)(a) UP Act No.13 of 1972 was not served on the defendant? If yes, then it's effect.
(3.) Whether the court fee is insufficient and the suit is undervalued?;