- (1.) THE present appeal is directed against the judgment and de cree of the 2nd Additional Civil and Ses-1 sions Judge, Moradabad, dated llth March, 1972.
(2.) THE facts leading up to this appeal are as follows:- Shamim Ahmad Alvi, the appellant occupied the disputed accommodation on 12th April, 1964, on a monthly rent of Rs. 45. The landlord, Azizul Rahman Khan, the respondent, sought to evict the tenant. He, therefore, sent a registered notice demanding the arrears of rent ind terminating the contract of tenancy on 26th February, 1969. The registered notice was returned by the postal de partment with the endorsement of refa-sal. The landlord treating the refusal as service filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent as also the damages for use and occupation, pendente lite and future and for the eviction of the tenant. He alleged that the disputed accommodation was post 1951 construction and, therefore, U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Old Act') had no application. The tenant was, therefore, not entitled to the protection of the said Act. The claim was resisted by the tenant on grounds, inter alia, that the disputed accommodation was pre-1951 construction -and, therefore, he was en titled to the protection of the old Act, that the notice terminating the tenancy of the appellant was not a valid notice nor was it served on him.
(3.) THE Additional Munsif accept ed the plaintiff's claim and decreed the suit for all the reliefs. He found that the accommodation in question was a post-1951 construction and, therefore, the ap pellant was not entitled to the protection of the old Act. He further found the notice under Section 106 of the Transfei of Property Act terminating the tenancy to be a valid one and the same havingbeen refused by the tenant will be deem ed to have been served by him.;