Anjani Kumar, J. - (1.) This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questions the order passed by the Vth Additional District Judge exercising powers of revision under the provision of Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. The facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are as under : "That the petitioner, defendant in the suit, aggrieved by the order passed by the trial court whereby the trial court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent Nos. 3 and 4 approached the revisional court. The plaint allegations are that the plaintiff-respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are the owners and landlords of the accommodation in dispute which has been let out to the defendant-petitioner as one of the conditions of the contract of employment because the defendant was employed in the college run and managed by the plaintiff-respondent Nos. 3 and 4 on a monthly rent of Rs. 45 and also that the Act No. XIII of 1972 is not applicable. The petitioner-defendant raised objection that the plaintiffs have no right to institute the suit in question and that the provisions of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (in short the 'Act') are applicable. The defendant also raised objection that the notice determining the tenancy was not a valid notice. On the basis of pleadings of the parties the trial court framed the issues : (1) whether the plaintiffs have a right to institute the suit and (2) whether the tenancy has been determined by the notice in question. If so its effect?"
(2.) The trial court decided issue Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of plaintiffs and, therefore, decreed the suit holding that the plaintiffs have validly determined the tenancy and suit has been instituted after terminating the tenancy. Thus, suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent was decreed against the defendant. Aggrieved thereby the defendant preferred a revision before respondent No. 1 and before the revisional court the same arguments were advanced : (1) Whether the plaintiffs are not entitled to sue? (2) Whether the provisions of Act No. XIII of 1972 are not applicable? (3) Whether the tenancy of the defendant is terminated? If so, its effect? (4) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to claim the pendente lite and future mesne profits?
(3.) The revisional court affirmed the order passed by the trial court and dismissed the revision. Aggrieved thereby the defendant preferred this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant has relied upon the provisions of Section 20 (2) (g) of the Act, which reads as under : "(g) that the tenant was allowed to occupy the building as part of his contract of employment under the landlord, and his employment has ceased.";