Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Deepak Jaiswal holding brief of Sri Ajay Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that mandatory notice as required under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 was not given by the plaintiff-respondent no.3 to the defendant-petitioner prior to institution of P.A. Case No.39 of 1992 and as such the P.A. case itself was not entertain able. The plaintiff-respondent no.3 and one Sri Radha Krishna Gupta, are the joint owners of the disputed property in question and as such P.A. case instituted by the plaintiff respondent no.3 alone was not maintainable. The aforesaid P.A. case was instituted by concealment of fact that the joint owners have already filed a release application against one of the tenants, namely, Sri Munnu Khan and the premises was released and the said accommodation is in occupation of the plaintiff respondent no.3. The finding recorded by the court below that the defendant petitioner has not searched for alternative occupation is baseless.
(3.) Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent no.3 submits that the notice as required under proviso to Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was given by the plaintiff respondent no.3 to the defendant-petitioner and this fact was well established by various evidences filed before the courts below and the findings recorded by both the courts below on this point is a finding of fact based on consideration of relevant evidences on record. He submits that the share and accommodation purchased by the plaintiff respondent no.3 in the disputed property are well defined and the courts below have recorded a finding of fact in this regard based on consideration of relevant evidences and material on record. Sri Radha Krishan Gupta owned ⅓rd portion in the disputed property and his share was on the ground floor while ⅔rd share of the plaintiff respondent no.3 was upper floor and rest of the portion of the ground floor. In the ground floor portion of Sri Radha Krishan Gupta one Sri Munnu Khan was the tenant against whom a release application was filed and subsequently Sri Munu Khan died and thereafter his wife entered into a compromise with Sri Radha Krishan Gupta and vacated the premises which has been given as licencee to the plaintiff respondent no.3. He submits that the courts below have considered each and every aspect of the matter and the evidences on record and correctly passed the order. The findings recorded are findings of fact based on relevant evidences on record and as such the same can not be interpreted for writ court jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.;