S.U.Khan, J. - (1.) This is tenant's writ petition arising out of suit for eviction on the ground of default and for recovery of arrears of rent filed by landlord-respondent No. 2 Banaras Hindu University in the form of Suit (S.C.C. Suit) No. 728 of 1978 before the J.S.C.C. Varanasi. Property in dispute is two room residential accommodation on the second floor rent of which is Rs. 19/- per month.
(2.) Trial Court held that notice of termination of tenancy and demand of rent was not proved to be served upon the tenant. However, the trial court held in favour of the plaintiff-landlord that U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable on the building in dispute by virtue of Section 2(a) read with Section 3(o) and 3(p) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, as they stood at that time. By virtue of the said provisions the Act was not applicable to a building belonging to public sector Corporation. The suit for eviction was, therefore, dismissed. However, it was decreed for recovery of arrears of rent through judgment and decree dated 19.7.1983. Against the said judgment and decree respondent No. 2 filed Civil Revision No. 211 of 1983.
(3.) Revisional Court/1st A.D.J. Varanasi held that service of notice was proved as in para 20 of the written statement the only thing which was stated was that notice of the plaintiff was illegal. Revisional Court also recorded a finding that the tenant herself did not enter the witness box to deny service of notice. In para 4 of the plaint it was stated that notice was sent on 22.7.1977 and served on 26.7.1977. In reply to the said para tenant in para 20 of the written statement stated that notice was illegal. This clearly amounted to admission of service of notice. Accordingly I hold that on the issue of service of notice finding of the revisional Court is perfectly correct and legal. Contrary finding of the trial court was clearly erroneous in law.;