ANJANI KUMAR,J. - (1.) THIS is a tenant's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The respondent No. 3 filed a suit for arrears of rent and eviction after serving a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Before the trial Court the tenant raised an objection regarding respondent No. 3 being the landlord and it was vehemently argued before the trial Court that the trial Court has no jurisdiction and the suit should have been filed on the regular side. The trial Court has recorded a finding against the tenant on all the issues and ultimately decreed the suit for eviction and arrears of rent.
(2.) AGGRIEVED thereby the petitioner filed a revision before the Revisional Court. The only point argued before the Revisional Court is that the trial Court has not considered as to whether the tenant is entitled for the benefit of sub -section (4) of Section 20 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. On this issue the Revisional Court has gone in detail and found that in fact neither there is any application nor tender on the record. The Revisional Court has recorded a finding that no factual basis is made out for the benefit of sub -section (4) of Section 20 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and therefore, the revision was dismissed. No other point was urged before the Revisional Court. Sri R.C. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that a point, which has not been raised before the Revisional Court, was raised before the trial Court and the trial Court has rejected the same. The Revisional Court has dealt with the points, which have been argued and raised before it. The tenant having acceded to the judgment of the trial Court with regard to other points except the point that the benefit of sub -section (4) of Section 20 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is available to the tenant or not. The Revisional Court has dealt with the other points except the point that the benefit of sub -section (4) of Section 20 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is available to the tenant or not and recorded a finding against the tenant and confirmed the decree passed by the trial Court by dismissing the revision.
(3.) NO other point has been raised before this Court.;