R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) THIS present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arises out of a suit for ejectment and recovery of rent, damages etc. and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3.4.1998 whereby suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the trial Court (Judge, Small Causes Court), Gorakhpur and judgment and order dated 26.5.2000 whereby revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Court below. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner filed suit No. 7 of 1983 against the defendant -respondent Nos. 3 and 4 for ejectment from the shop in dispute pleading that she was the owner of the said shop, which was constructed in the year 1970 but the information regarding the said construction was not given to the Municipal Authorities, Gorakhpur. It was in the year 1976 that the said shop was at the first time assessed to municipal taxes, therefore, U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 had no application to the same. The shop in question was let out to defendant No. 1 for a limited period of 11 months on 7.12.1980. To evidence the said transaction a rent note was also executed. Inspite of the fact that the term of tenancy came to an end, the defendant No. 3 did not vacate the shop and remained in occupation in the same, therefore, she was liable to pay to pay an amount of Rs. 1400/ - as damages, and contrary to the agreement entered into between the parties, the respondent No. 2 inducted the respondent No. 3 as one of the partners of her firm Medico Pharmacy as a partner which amounted to sub -letting. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 continued in unauthorised occupation of the said shop and also did not pay rent/damages for the same to the petitioner. Inspite of the fact that the term of vacancy for which shop was let out came to and end and inspite or service of notice dated 7.3.1983, hence, the suit for the above mentioned reliefs. The suit was contested by the defendant -respondent No. 3 who filed her written statement denying the claim of the petitioner, by filing the written statement. It was pleaded that there was no cause of action for filing the suit that the said shop was firstly let out to Vijay Kumar Jaiswal who was doing the business of electrical goods and also took electrical connection in his name at the said shop; that Vijay Kumar Jaiswal vacated the said shop and thereafter same was let out by the petitioner to the defendant -respondent No. 3; that the respondent No. 3 started business of sale of medicine in the name and style of 'Medico Pharma' in the said shop with the permission of the petitioner; that respondent No. 3 admitted one of the partners as defendant No. 3 wanted to carry on the business of medicine in the shop in dispute, that it was with the implied consent of the petitioner that the said business was started in the partnership of respondent No. 3. Since the shop in dispute was constructed and let out in the year 1970 to Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were applicable to it, that initially the shop was let out for a period 11 months at the rent of Rs. 150/ - per month. Subsequently the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were permitted to remain in occupation in the said shop and to carry on the said business after enhancement of rent to Rs. 200/ - per month. The agreement of partnership was lastly renewed in December, 1980. The rate of rent was also enhanced to Rs. 300/ - per month and respondent No. 3 was permitted to continue as partner of firm. The petitioner was stated to be a clever man who deliberately concealed the agreement of 1980 and simply refused to initial agreement entered into between the parties in the year 1979; that no notice of termination of tenancy was ever given to the petitioner, therefore, suit was liable to be dismissed with cost. Benefit of sub -section (4) of Section 20 of the Act was also claimed.
(2.) ON the basis of pleading of the parties, the trial court framed relevant issues which were answered in favour of respondent No. 3 and the suit was dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 3.4.1998. Challenging the validity of the said decree, petitioner filed a revision before the Court below. The Revisional Court also affirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the revision, hence the present petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the Courts below have acted illegally in dismissing the suit and the revision filed by the petitioner, therefore, the judgment and orders passed by the Courts below were liable to be quashed. It was also urged that the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that the shop in dispute was sub -let to the respondent No. 3, even assuming that the provisions of the Act were applicable to the shop in dispute, the suit was liable to be decreed. It was also urged that from the material on record, it is proved that the shop in dispute was assessed to municipal taxes for the first time in the year 1976, therefore, the provisions of the Act has no application to it. The view taken and the findings recorded by the Courts below to the contrary are manifestly erroneous and illegal.
(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the record. The Courts below recorded concurrent findings of fact that from the material on record, it was proved that the shop in dispute was constructed in the year 1970, the same was let out in the same year. Counting from the said date till filing of the suit, more than ten years have elapsed, therefore, provisions of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1973 were applicable to it. No doubt finding on the question of sub -letting was recorded in favour of the petitioner but it was held by the Courts below that no notice of termination of tenancy as required under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, before filing the suit, was ever given by the petitioner. The notice served upon the respondent No. 2 gave only seven days time to vacate the shop in dispute. The same was, therefore, illegal and invalid. On other relevant issues, findings were also recorded in favour of the respondents No. 3 and 4 and the revision filed by the petitioner was rightly dismissed by the Court below. The findings recorded by the Court below are all findings of fact, which are based on the relevant evidence on record. The judgment and orders passed by the Courts below, in my opinion, do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. This petition has got no merit, same fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.;