Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) Heard Sri A.C. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri A.K. Tiwari, Advocate assisted by Sri Tarun Tiwari, Advocate for respondent.
(2.) It is contended that the Revisional Court has set aside Trial Court's decree and judgment dismissing suit of respondents and decreeing the same to the extent of 2/3 of disputed accommodation directing the petitioners to vacate same though at no point of time petitioners were given any notice as contemplated in Section 20(2)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972"), which the petitioners never defaulted and, therefore, no decree could have been passed against petitioners.
(3.) Sri Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that Small Cause Suit No. 344 of 1980 was filed by respondent alleging that Sri Shiv Nath Yadav, husband of petitioner no. 1 and father of petitioners no. 2 to 5, was a sub-tenant illegally inducted and given possession of 2 disputed accommodation by one Jhimal Gaur, defendant no. 1 in the said suit.;