- (1.) This writ petition has been filed by the tenant, Postmaster General, U.P. Lucknow and two others praying for writ of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 20-7-1996 passed by the District Judge. Mathura in SCC Revision No. 150 of 1994 (Mahesh Chandra Agarwal v. Post Master General, U.P. Lucknow and others), whereby the District Judge allowed the revision of (he landlord (respondent No. 3) and decreed the suit for ejectment of the petitioner from the premises in dispute.
(2.) The dispute relates to building situate in village town and post office Aring, Tehsil & District Mathura, wherein the post office was being run on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/-. Initially it was let out at rent of Rs. 50/- per month, which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 60.00 and, thereafter, with effect from 1978 the rent was enhanced to Rs. 100/- per month. The landlord respondent No. 3 gave combined notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of the Property Act read with Section 80 of the C.P.C. dated 2-7-1987 terminating the tenancy and requesting to vacate. Thereafter, suit was filed which was registered as SCC Suit No. 77 of 1987. The written statement filed by the petitioner in May 1988 in which two specific pleas were raised: firstly that the combined notice under Section 1 06 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 80 of the C.P.C. could not have been given as such the notice being invalid the suit was liable to be dismissed and secondly the landlord had accepted the rent for the month of July and August 1987 after the notice dated 2-7-1987 and as such the suit could not be maintained on account of waiver on the basis of the notice dated 2- 7-1987.
(3.) Both the parties led evidence in support of their cases. The Trial Court vide judgment dated 5-9-1994 dismissed the suit of the respondent on the ground that the landlord having accepted rent for the months of July and August 1987 after giving notice, amounted to waiver of notice by conduct and, therefore, under law no fresh notice having been given after August, 1987, the tenancy did not stand terminated and in the absence of valid termination of tenancy the suit had to fail. Revision was filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act 1887, which was registered as SCC Revision No. 150 of 1994. The Revisional Court after considering the sub- missions of the parties framed three questions for determination, which were legal and did not depend upon any question of fact nor did they require appreciation of evidence. The first question was whether the combined notice in the present case was valid, secondly whether the notice to quit stood waived on account of the plaintiff having accepted rent for the months of July and August 1987 and also by withdrawing the rent deposited by the petitioner in respect of subsequent months in the Court and lastly whether the landlord respondent had given express or implied consent to treat continuance of the lease after the service of notice. The revisional Court considered all the three questions and decided them in favour of the plaintiff landlord and accordingly allowed the revision and decreed the suit vide judgment dated 20-7-1996. It is this judgment, which has been impugned in the present writ petition.;