D.S.Sinha - (1.) HEARD Sri Vishnu Kumar Singh, holding brief of Sri R. N. Singh, learned counsel representing the petitioner and Sri M. A. Qadeer learned counsel representing the contesting respondent no. 3.
(2.) THE respondent no. 3 instituted Small Cause Case No 25 of 1980, Mohd. Idris v. Jhabul Ram, in the Court of Judge Small Causes/Munsif (East), Ballia, for ejectment of the petitioner from the shop in dispute and for recovery of arrears of rent together with damages. THE petitioner resisted the suit on the ground that there was no arrears and that the requisite notice under section 20 of the U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter called the Act, and section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 had not been served on him. He also claimed the benefit of sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act. By means of the decree and judgment dated 22nd January, 1981 the Judge Small Causes decreed the suit of the respondent no. 3 on the findings that the requisite notice had been served on the petitioner and that he was not entitled to the benefit of the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act in as much as he had not made requisite deposit on the first date of hearing as envisaged in sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the aforesaid , Act. Aggrieved by the decree and judgment of the Judge Small Cau?es, the petitioner filed a revision, no. 5 of 3981, Jhabul Ram v. Mohd. Idris, in the Court of District Judge, Ballia, under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887. The learned District Judge, Ballia agreeing with the finding of the learned Judge Small Causes dismissed the revision of the petitioner and affirmed the decree and judgment dated 22nd January, 1981 passed against the petitioner vide his order and judgment dated 19th May, 1981.
(3.) TWO decrees and judgments dated 22nd January, 1981 and 19th May, 1981, passed by the Judge, Small Causes, Ballia and the District Judge, Ballia, aforesaid, are under challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the courts below erred in holding that the requisite notice had been duly served on the petitioner and that he was not entitled to the benefit of the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act.;