H.N. Seth, A.C. J. - (1.) THIS is Defendants petition for relief Under Article 226 of the Constitution. He prays that the order, dated 2nd of December, 1.979 passed by the District Judge, Faizabad in Small Cause Court Civil Revision No. 37 of 1978 be quashed and that the order passed by the Judge Small Causes on 29th May, 1978 dismissing the Plaintiffs' suit for Petitioner's ejectment be restored.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise to this petition are that Bhagwat Prasad and his three brothers (Respondents No. 3 to 6) claimed to be the owners and landlords of shop No. 577 as well as that of the residential accommodation above it. According to them, Mohammad Umar (Petitioner) was their tenant liable to pay Rs. 110; per month as rent for the shop and Rs. 50;' - per month as rent for the residential portion above the said shop. As the Defendants defaulted in payment of rent, the Plaintiffs served a notice, dated 13th of August, l975 upon him, determining his tenancy and thereafter they filed the suit before the Judge Small Causes for Defendant's ejectment and recovery of Rs. 2,020 - as arrears of rent and damages due up to 29th February, 1976. The Defendant contested the suit and urged that inasmuch as the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were applicable to the accommodation in question, the present suit for his ejectment was not maintainable. He also claimed that the notice to quit was illegal, the amount of arrears claimed was incorrect and that in any case the Plaintiffs had waived the notice to quit inasmuch as they had accepted the rent for the accommodation for the period subsequent to the date of notice.
(3.) THE trial court rejected the plea of the Defendant to the effect that the accommodation in dispute was covered by the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. It held that the rent as claimed by the plaint it 's was in fact due. It rejected the plea of the Defendant with regard to waiver of notice to quit but went on to hold that inasmuch as the copy of the notice to quit filed by the Plaintiffs did not bear the signatures of all the landlords, it was invalid. In the result, the trial court decreed the Plaintiffs suit for recovery of Rs. 2,020 as arrears of rent but dismissed the suit in so far as the relief for Defendant's ejectment was concerned.;