MAHENDRA DAYAL, J. - (1.) THE review -petitioner has sought review of the judgement passed by this Court on 12.3.2013, in Writ Petition No. 125 of 2009 (R/C), whereby the writ petition was dismissed.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the review -petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting opposite parties.
(3.) REVIEW of the judgment has been sought on the ground that this Court while dismissing the writ petition came to a wrong conclusion that the review -petitioner did not raise the plea of notice before the revisional court and in the present writ petition. Another ground for review of the judgment which has been taken is that this Court did not consider the plea of the review petitioner that none of the grounds mentioned in sub -section (2) of Section 20 of Act No. 13 of 1972 exist warranting and justifying the decree of ejectment. The learned counsel for the review -petitioner has submitted that a decree for ejectment under the provision of Act No.13 of 1972 can be passed only after termination of tenancy by giving a notice in writing. The review petitioner in his written statement before the learned Judge Small Causes had specifically challenged that no notice was ever served upon him and as such the suit for ejectment was not maintainable. This fact is evident from the judgement of the trial court itself. The learned trial court inspite of specific pleadings, did not frame any issue as to whether the tenancy of the review petitioner was terminated by serving valid notice. The learned trial court passed an erroneous decree of eviction against which a revision was filed before the District Judge which too was dismissed without disclosing as to whether the notice was actually served upon the review -petitioner or not This Court while dismissing the writ petition observed that the review -petitioner did not take it as a ground before the revisional court that the notice was not served.;