Sudhir Narain, J. - (1.) THE Courts below decreed the suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment and the petitioners aggrieved against those orders have filed Writ Petition. Briefly stated the facts are that plaintiff -respondent No. 4 filed Suit No. 51 of 1984 in the Court of Judge, Small Causes for recovery of arrears of rent ejectment against the petitioners with the allegations that the rent of the disputed accommodation was Rs. 20 per month. The petitioners did not pay arrears of rent since 1.6.1983. A notice dated 11.1.1984 demanding arrears of rent was sent but inspite of service of notice they did not pay the rent and committed default and were liable for eviction on the ground mentioned under Section 20(2)(a) of UP. Act No. 13 of 1972. The Judge, Small Causes Court decreed the suit on 5.2.1985 on the finding that the rate of rent was Rs. 20 per month and the defendant -petitioners failed to prove that they had made deposit under Section 20(4) of the Act.
(2.) THE petitioners preferred a Writ Petition No. Nil of 1990 on the ground that the Revisional Court did not consider the question as to whether the petitioners have received notice. This Court dismissed the Writ Petition with the observation that it was open to them to file an application for review before the Revisional Court. The petitioners preferred an application for review before the Revisional Court. The Court rejected the application on 18.2.1991 on the finding that the petitioners had neither raised this question either before the Judge, Small Causes Court or before the Revisional Court. I have heard Sri M.A. Qadeer, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rajesh Tandon learned Counsel for the respondent. Learned Counsel for the petitioners urged that the petitioners had not received the notice sent by the plaintiff -respondent. The petitioners had filed written statement pleading that they had not received notice alleged to have been sent by the plaintiff. The registered notices were sent to the petitioners by the plaintiff -respondent No. 4. The registered notices were returned with the endorsement of refusal. One of the defendants, namely, Mushtaq (petitioner No. 2) appeared in the witness box. He denied that he received the notice. He was cross -examined and in the cross -examination be admitted that there is no enmity between him and the postman. He did not report any other circumstance to rebut the presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act. Secondly, separate registered notices were sent to each of the petitioner and as regards other petitioners there was no evidence to show that they had not received the registered notice and the endorsement made by the postman was collusive or false. The Revisional Court, on considering the review application, further found that this question was never raised before the Judge, Small Causes Court nor before the Revisional Court. The Judge, Small Causes Court decided each question by framing points and there was no reason that this point, if raised, would have not been decided. No other point was pressed. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. In the end, learned Counsel for the petitioners prayed that some time may be granted to the petitioners to vacate the disputed premises. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners are granted six months' time to vacate the disputed premises provided they give an undertaking on affidavit before the trial Court within two weeks from today that they will vacate the disputed premises within the time granted by this Court and would hand over its peaceful possession to the landlord -respondent No. 4. ;