Pankaj Mithal, J. - (1.) The petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the judgment and order dated 12.7.2013 passed by the Judge, Small Cause Court, Meerut and the revisional judgment and order dated 26.5.2016 passed by the District Judge, Meerut.
(2.) The Courts below by the impugned order have decreed the suit of the respondent No.3 for arrears of rent and eviction holding that the tenancy of the petitioner was duly determined vide notice dated 14.3.2001 which was taken to have been served and since U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 is not applicable, the petitioner is not entitle to benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act.
(3.) In assailing the above judgments and orders, the submission of Sri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the notice determining tenancy was not sent to the petitioner at his correct address and, therefore, as the notice was returned with the endorsement not met the presumption of its service cannot be drawn.;