M.L.BHATT, J. - (1.) THE trial Court of XI Additional District Judge, Kanpur has directed the eviction of the applicant from the suit premises and has also asked him to pay the arrears of rent by the impugned judgment and decree dated 26.1.83. During the pendency of this revision petition the original tenant died and his legal representatives were brought on record vide order dated 5.7.89.
(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the applicant raised the following points before the Court. In the first place he submitted that the rate of rent per month was Rs. 110/- and not Rs. 160/-, as determined by the Court below. The Court below in this regard, according to the learned counsel, has ignored the material evidence which is in the form of a document of assessment by the Nagar Mahapalika. In the second place, it was contended that the tenancy of the applicant has not been determined in accordance with law and the notice to quit under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is bad, therefore, no ejectment proceedings would lie on the basis of invalid notice. The learned counsel has not pressed the ground of challenge on the basis of Section 39 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Therefore, the fate of this revision would depend on the question of rate of rent per month being Rs. 110/- and not Rs. 160/- and the notice to quit being invalid.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length.;