Sudhir Narain Agarwal, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 13.7.1984 passed by the Judge Small Causes Court decreeing recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages and the order of the revisional court dated 19.1.1987 dismissing the revision against the aforesaid judgment. The plaintiff -respondent filed suit for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages against the petitioner with the allegations that he was the owner and landlord of House No. 99, Minhajpur, Allahabad and the defendant has been occupying a portion of the said house consisting of two rooms on monthly rent of Rs. 35/ -. He was in arrears of rent from the month of August 1979 to August 1982. A notice demanding the arrears of rent for the period 1.8.1979 to 31.8.1982 and terminating the tenancy was sent to the petitioner on 29.9.1982. The notice was served upon him but he did not comply with the same.
(2.) THE petitioner contested the suit and denied that the plaintiff was owner of the property in dispute. It was denied that he was tenant of the plaintiff and also never paid any rent to him. The Judge Small Causes Court framed 12 issues. It was found that the petitioner was tenant of the disputed premises and he having not complied with the notice sent by the plaintiff -respondent, was liable for eviction on the ground mentioned under Section 20(2)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. This judgment has been affirmed in revision by respondent No. 1. I have heard Sri Radhey Shyam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the finding recorded by the courts below. It is contended that the courts below have confused the number of house with 99 Tagore Road with 99 Minhajpur. The petitioner examined himself as D.W. 2. He admitted that the disputed house bears number 99. The plaintiff had filed Paper No. 33/3 -C (Ext. 2) annexed as Khasra of Nagar Palika Allahabad wherein the name of the plaintiff was recorded as owner of House No. 99 that is land beneath it belonging to Maharaja Riva. The case of the petitioner was that he had constructed a house consisting of two rooms. The defendant nowhere stated that in fact he had constructed the house. He also admitted in the statement that he was paying rent but on behalf of Maharaja Riva. Maharaja Riva was never recorded as owner of the house in question. None on behalf of Maharaja Riva disputed that the property belongs to him. The courts below considering the entire evidence have recorded concurrent finding that the petitioner -plaintiff is a tenant of the disputed premises. I do not find any merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. In the end learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that some time may be granted to vacate the disputed premises. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is granted four months' time to vacate the disputed premises provided he gives a written undertaking on affidavit before the trial court within two weeks from today that he would vacate the disputed accommodation within the time granted by this Court and will hand over its peaceful possession to the landlord -respondent. ;