- (1.) A. K. Yog, J. Abdul Rashid and another have filed this petition under Ar ticle 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and order dated 5-8-1998 passed by Court of Judge, Small Causes Court (Annexure-2 to the peti tion) confirmed by District Judge, Almora in revision under Section 25 of the Provin cial Small Causes Court Act by judgment and order dated 5- 5-2000.
(2.) A. U. S. C. C. Suit No. 1 of 1997 (Om Prakash v. Abdul Rashid) was filed by one Om Prakash, landlord/owner of house No. 172 (New No. 64) Lala Bazar, Almora for seeking eviction of defendant (petitioner) as contemplated under Section 20 (1) of this Act No. 13 of 1972 on the ground of default, material alteration etc. The Court of Judge, Small Causes decreed the suit by means of judgment and order dated August 5,1998. Perusal of the trial Court judgment shows that the defen dants petitioners contested the suit on the ground that the notice, as required under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 20 (4) of the Act No. 13 of 1972, was not given in the instant case. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record recorded specific finding of fact to the effect that the notice under Section 20 (2) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 read with Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act was a valid notice and the defendant failed to satisfy the requirement of conditions contained under Section 20 (4) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The landlord-tenant relationship was not denied in the instant case and the defendant also admitted that rent at the rate of Rs. 54/- per month in paragraph 3 of the written statement. The trial Court after perusing the evidence on record found that the amount was not deposed according to Section 20 (4) of the Act and the same was short even according to cal culation given by the defendant (particular page 61 of the writ petition paper book ).
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners referred to ground No. 10 (added by way of amendment) and has attempted to show that the amount claimed by the plaintiff in the suit and in the notice in question were not inconsonance with each other. THE learned counsel for the petitioners, however, did not show from the written statement that such a defence was taken in the written statement. Even the judgment of trial Court does not indicate that any argument on this aspect was advanced before the trial Court. The trial Court judgment was chal lenged by filing revision under Section 26 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act and the said revision has also been dis missed. Perusal of the revisional order shows that the revisional Court applied its mind independently to the arguments ad vanced on behalf of the petitioners. There is no averment in the petition that any argument advanced by the petitioners has not been considered or omitted. In this view of the matter the petitioners cannot be allowed to raise new argument, par ticularly when requisite pleadings are missing and no legal ground has been taken in the petition specifying the error.;