N.N. Mittal, J. - (1.) THIS revision by the defendants tenants raises two legal questions which have cropped up in the following circumstances: The plaintiff opposite party, being the owner of the premises in dispute, had applied for fixation of rent under Section 21(8) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972. On 2.9.1979, the concerned authority fixed a sum of Rs. 3333.33 per month as the rent for the premises being 1/12th of the 10% of the market value of the property. The rate agreed between the parties earlier was Rs. 475/ per month. After serving a notice demanding arrears with effect from 1.3.1979 coupled with a notice under Section 106 of the Transferor Property Act and Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff demanded delivery of possession etc. This notice was admittedly served on 12.9.1979 and on defendants' failure to comply, a suit was instituted on 22.3.1980.
(2.) IN the defence, it was admitted that an application for fixation of rent had been moved but the matter was pending before the Court in appeal and the same had not become final. It was also urged that the notice under Section 80 C.P.C. was not valid. After a formal evidence by the plaintiff, the defendants gave a statement that no oral evidence is to be adduced on their behalf. The suit was ultimately decreed on 23.9.1980, aggrieved against which, the present revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act has been preferred. The two contentions raised before me are about the validity of the notice under Section 80 C.P.C. and that the property in dispute was not a public building within the meaning of Section 3(0) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. On the first question Sri Mathur, learned counsel appearing for the applicants, has urged that the persons to whom the notice had been given and those against whom the suit was filed are not identical. The second ground for questioning the validity of the notice is that the relief claimed in the notice and in the suit based upon it was different and lastly it was urged that a notice under Section 10(sic) of the Transfer of Property Act could not be combined with a notice under Section 80 C.P.C. For all these reasons, the validity of the notice has been challenged.
(3.) AS to the first ground of invalidity, it would be seen that the notice was addressed to (1) The State of U.P. through the Secretary, Ministry of Education (2) Director of Education, U.P. and (3) Registrar of Departmental Examination, Allahabad. Emphasis has been laid by the counsel on the following words used in para 1 of the notice. or occupied by you, the State of U.P., as a tenant of my client and there is the office of the Registrar of Departmental Examinations in it.;