- (1.) A. K. Yog, J. S. C. C. Suit No. 23 of 1999 was filed by Noor Ahmad and Firdaus Ahmad against Idris Ansari, defendant, in the Court of Judge, Small Causes Court, Gorakhpur for recovery of arrears of rent, mesne profit as well as for possession of residential house in possession of the defendant situate at Mohalla Basantpur Narkatiya, Gorakhpur. Plaintiff claimed rent at the rate of Rs. 600 per month, copy of the plaint has been filed as Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition. Defendant filed writ ten statement and denied claim. of the plaintiff, trial Court framed points for determination including whether rent was Rs. 600 as claimed by the plaintiff or Rs. 50 as asserted by the defendant; whether notice dated 6-2-1999 was not tendered and presumption sought from the endor sement of refusal of postal authority was rebutted; whether tenant was entitled to seek direction for eviction decree by making deposit as contemplated under Section 20 (4) under U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (for short called 'the Act'); whether notice demanding higher rent was valid in law. Judge Small Causes Court partly decreed the suit for arrears of rent and dismissed the suit to the extent plaintiffs claimed eviction from the accommodation in question. It further allowed the suit partly with respect to other reliefs vide judgment and order dated 20-10-2000 (Annexure-2 to the Writ Petition ).
(2.) FEELING aggrieved plaintiff landlord filed revision under Section 25, Provincial Small Causes Court Act against the judgment and order dated 20-10-2000 of the trial Court to the extent it had gone against him. Revisional Court allowed the revision by means of judgment and order dated 20 January, 2001 (Annexure-3 to the Writ Petition ). The Revisional Court, however, affirmed the finding of the Judge Small Causes Court on the question of rate of rent; namely it was affirmed that rate of rent payable by the tenant was Rs. 50 per month only. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Landlord-respondent has filed Counter-affidavit and annexed certain documents. Petitioner has also filed Rejoinder-affidavit.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has sought to raise three points as follows: Notice under Section 106, Transfer of Property Act was invalid, inasmuch as landlord was admittedly claimed higher rent. Revisional Court has held, on this issue against the tenant petitioner relying upon decision in the case of Gokaran Singh v. 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hardoi and others, 2000 (1) JCLR 375 (A1!) (LB) (FB); 2000 (40) ALR 405 (FB-LB ). Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that notice shall be had if higher amount of rent is being demanded and seeks to support his argument by placing reliance upon the ratio laid down in the case of N. M. Engineer and others v. Narendra Singh Virdi, AIR 1995 SC 448. 1 have gone through the decision it does not help the petitioner. On the other hand Full Bench decision of this Court which dealt with the issues directly is a binding precedent.;