A.N. Dikshita, J. - (1.) THE instant petition has been preferred by the Petitioner praying for quashing the judgments and Orders dated 30 -01 -1980 and 09 -10 -1978 passed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively.
(2.) THE facts in brief are that Respondent No. 3 filed a suit for the eviction as well as for the recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation of the accommodation. The suit was filed on the allegation that the Petitioner was a tenant of a building owned by him situate at Mohalla Baghpur, Kanjaulia, Aligarh on a monthly rent of Rs. 45/ -. The Petitioner being in arrears of rent w.e.f. 10 -07 -1973 till 11 -03 -1977 was served with a notice dated 11 -03 -1977 but inspire of the notice no compliance thereof was ever achieved by the Petitioner. The Petitioner was thus liable to selectmen Under Section 20(2) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The suit was contested by the Petitioner on various grounds. It was alleged by the Petitioner that there existed no privities of contract as regards the tenancy between the parties and as such the suit is not maintainable. It was urged on behalf of the Respondents before the trial court that the notice was not sent on the correct address. The trial court decreed the suit for selectmen and recovery of arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 1620/ - besides pendent elite and future damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 45/ - per month. The Petitioner was also granted one month's time to vacate the accommodation in suit. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and Order dated 04 -10 -1978 passed by Respondent No. 2 a revision was preferred to the court of the District Judge, Aligarh which was transferred to the court of III Addl. District Judge, Aligarh for disposal according to Jaw. This revision was also dismissed with costs vide his judgment and Order dated 30 -01 -1980 and the judgment and decree passed by the court below was confirmed. The instant petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed against the said two judgments and orders mentioned above passed by Respondent No. 2 and 1 respectively.
(3.) HEARD counsel for the parties. Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the notice sent Under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act was not sent on the address of the Petitioner where he was living but at the address where he was working. There is no fact emerging from the records which may show that the notice was not served on the Petitioner. On the other hand the trial court has conclusively come to the conclusion that the notice was served on the Petitioner and this finding of fact is not open to the Petitioner to assail in the proceedings before me. However, neither in written -statement nor in his statement before the trial court there is an iota of material which may show that the notice was not served on the Petitioner. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that in view of non -examination of the postman it has not been adequately proved that the notice was served. There is again no merit in this submission. The trial court on the basis of the record as well as in view of the statement of the parties had come to this finding of fact as regards the service of the notice. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner then urged that the composite notice Under Section 20(1) of the Act and Section 106 Transfer of Property Act is illegal and does not legally determine the tenancy of the Petitioner. The notice which has been filed as Annexure 1 to the supplementary affidavit by the Petitioner has been perused by me and I do not find it illegal or invalid on any count. It was clearly stated in the notice that the Petitioner was in arrears of rent w.e.f. 10.07.1973 to 11.03.1977, thus deeming the Petitioner to be a defaulter as provided Under Section 20(2) of the Act. Further there is a categorical intention of Respondent No. 3 determining the tenancy I do not find any illegality in the notice. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not commit any illegality so as to assail such finding in the extraordinary jurisdiction Under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Respondent No. 1 found that the finding recorded by Respondent No. 2 is not vitiated by any error of law.;