R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 26.10.1991 whereby suit filed by the contesting respondents was decreed by the trial Court and the order dated 1.5.2000 whereby revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Court below and the case was remanded to the trial Court for-decision afresh on the question of validity of notice after framing an issue on the said question.
(3.) It appears thatthe respondents No. 1 to 7 filed a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent and damages pleading that the building in question was a new construction and provision of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972), for short the Act, Act had no application to it. It has been stated that the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was duly served upon the defendant-petitioner but he has neither paid the arrears nor vacated the building in question. The suit was contested by the defendant with the pleading that the building in question was old construction, therefore, provisions of the Act fully applicable to it. It was also asserted that the notice alleged to have been served upon the petitioner under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, was invalid and on the basis of that, the tenancy of the petitioner cannot be presumed to have been terminated. The parties, to the suit, produced evidences in support of their cases, oral as well as documentary. The trial Court after perusing the material on record, recorded findings on the relevant issues in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents and decreed the suit by the judgment and decree dated 26.10.1991. Challenging the validity of the said decree, the petitioner filed a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act. The said revision was also dismissed by the Revisional Court. The findings recorded by the trial Court was affirmed on the question of date of completion of the building as well as service of notice but since no finding was recorded on the question of validity of notice, the Court below has remanded the case for decision on the said point. The findings recorded on issues No. 1, 2 and 3 were confirmed.;