TARUN AGARWALA, J. - (1.) THE landlord filed a suit before the Judge Small Cause Court for ejectment of the petitioner along with the recovery of arrears of rent and for damages for use and occupation of the premises in question, from the date of the filing of the suit till the actual delivery of possession. The landlord also prayed that a decree of possession be also granted. The petitioner, who is the tenant in the premises in question, contested the suit and contended that he was not a defaulter and that he was not in arrears of rent. The petitioner also claimed benefit of sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, alleging that he had deposited the entire arrears of rent etc. unconditionally.
(2.) THE trial Court after determining the points in question decreed the suit of the landlord holding that the petitioner was in arrears of rent and that he had failed to pay the same within one month from the date of service of the notice of demand and determining the tenancy. The Judge Small Cause Court further found that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of sub- section (4) of Section 20 of the Act as he had not deposited the entire amount. Aggrieved by the order of the Judge Small Cause Court the petitioner filed a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. Before the revisional Court, the petitioner moved an amendment application, which was allowed. On the basis of the amendment, the petitioner contended that the suit filed by the landlord was for recovery of possession of the immovable property and, therefore, the suit was not cognizable under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The petitioner further contended that the notice determining the tenancy was invalid and was not in accordance with the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The revisional Court dismissed the revision and held that the notice, determining the tenancy, was a valid notice and was in accordance with the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The revisional Court further found that the suit filed by the landlord was maintainable and the relief of possession could also be granted by the Judge Small Cause Court.
(3.) HEARD Sri G.R. Jain, the learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears on behalf of respondents.;