Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sanjay Agrawal on behalf of the respondents.
(2.) S.C.C. suit no. 119 of 2002 was instituted by the plaintiff respondents against the petitioners for recovery of arrears of rent and for ejectment. It was decreed by the trial court by judgement dated 4.1.2010. The trial court recorded a specific finding that notice dated 11/6/2002 under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 terminating the tenancy was served on 12/6/2002 by registered post. The acknowledgement bears the signatures of Parul, the daughter of the petitioner no.1. It has further been held that although the petitioners have denied service of the notice, but they have not produced any handwriting expert to prove that the acknowledgement does not bear the signatures of Parul. The court has held that the petitioners have failed to discharge their burden and accordingly, decided issue no.4 relating to service of notice in favour of the plaintiff-respondents and against the petitioners.
(3.) On issue no.1, the trial court has held that the date of construction of the building is after 26 April 1985 and consequently, the provisions of U.P. Act no. XIII of 1972 would not apply. The findings have been affirmed by the revisional court with the dismissal of the revision.;