Pratap Narain Bakshi, J. - (1.) THIS is a defendants' revision arising out of a Small Cause Courts matter. The plaintiff Smt. Mithlesh Kumari filed a suit for eviction of the defendants from a residential house situate in Mohallah Gandhinagar Moradabad and for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs. 4622.50P and a sum of Rs. 750/ - as compensation for use and occupation upto the date of the suit. Her allegations were that the defendants had defaulted in the payment of rent and that their tenancy had been terminated by a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 did not apply since the constructions were made in the year 1971. The suit was contested by the defendants, who pleaded that the aforesaid Act was applicable since the constructions were made in 1965 -66. They also pleaded that notice had been served upon them and that the same was invalid. They further pleaded that the rent had been deposited in Court. It appears that the case has continued in the trial Court for over 3 years and the defendant No. 5 who was originally impleaded as a minor gave an application that he had become a major and along with it he filed a separate written statement, which was accepted by the Court on payment of costs to the plaintiff. In this written statement, it was pleaded that Smt. Rani Gupta, a sister of defendant No. 5 was also a tenant of the house in suit. Since she had not been impleaded the suit was not maintainable.
(2.) THE Judge Small Cause decreed the suit of the plaintiff for eviction of tenants as also for recovery of arrears of rent and compensation. Aggrieved thereby the instant revision has been filed in this Court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned judgment. I have also scrutinized the relevant papers from the record of the case. The trial Court has arrived the following findings: (a) that the disputed house was constructed on 1st April, 1970 and as such U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 did not apply. (b) that the notice to quit given under Section 106 of the T.P. Act was valid; (c) that the notice was served on the defendants, but inspire of it arrears of rent due, was not paid for 4 months thereof, and (d) that Smt. Rani Gupta had been married prior to the death of her father on 28th October 1974. Counsel for the applicant has submitted firstly that the notice was not served on the defendants. In order to verify this question, I had summoned the record of the case and have scrutinized the same. The acknowledgment due receipts which has been filed and exhibited in the case clearly indicates that notice was personally served on the defendants. There is a very clear endorsement to that effect that by Smt. Suraj Devi, who is the widow of Ram Kumar and the other defendants I find no reason to doubt the correctness of the findings recorded by the Courts below to the effect that service was effected on the defendants. This is a pure finding of fact which cannot be set aside in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
(3.) IT was next contended by the applicants' counsel that Smt. Rani Gupta also inherited the tenancy rights of her father, who has died on 28th October, 1974. His contention was that even if it be accepted that she was the married daughter, she still inherited tenancy rights. In other words he contended that Smt. Rani Gupta was a co -tenant along with the other heirs of Ram Kumar. As such notice for ejectment should have been given to her and served upon her also. In the absence of Smt. Rani Gupta being made a party to the suit, the same was not maintainable and the suit was liable to be thrown out.;