POONAM SRIVASTAV,J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) THIS is tenant's petition filed challenging the judgment and orders 23.1.2008 passed by the Judge Small Causes Court, Kanpur Nagar in S.C.C. Suit No. 312 of 2005 and 29.4.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Vth Kanpur Nagar in S.C.C. Revision No.34 of 2008. S.C.C. Suit was instituted after giving a notice terminating tenancy of petitioner. After institution of suit, case was contested by tenant Objection raised was that notice is invalid for reason that while mentioning rate of rent as Rs.650/- per month, it was also asserted by landlord that it is inclusive of water tax and rent demanded was inclusive of water tax. This objection is baseless since according to tenant himself, rate of rent is higher than one demanded in the notice. It is also finding of the courts below that notice was duly served on tenant. Besides, the courts below have recorded finding and come to a conclusion that notice is valid whereby tenancy was terminated by landlord. Submission is whether U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 is applicable to the disputed building or not. The courts below have come to a conclusion after analyzing evidence and recording the finding that U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 is not applicable, therefore, tenancy could be terminated by a simple notice. The suit for eviction was decreed and confirmed in revision.
(3.) SUBMISSION of counsel for petitioner that notice is invalid, is without any substance. There is no good ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.;