- (1.) A. K. Yog, J. Petitioner filed S. C. C. Suit No. 19 of 1997 (Shanti Swamp Gupta v. Kailash Chandra Gupta) for recovery of arrears of rent and damages, house tax, water tax and electricity charges etc. and ejectment froth the accommodation which was in the tenancy of the defen dant/tenant (respondent No. 2) at the rate of Rs. 55 per month. Notice dated 3-2-1997 (Annexure1 to the writ petition) was served determining tenancy of the defen dant-respondent No. 2 and requiring him to pay dues. The said notice was replied by the tenant/respondent No. 2. A true copy of the said reply dated 14-2-1997 has been filed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition. A perusal of the said reply shows that tenant denied his liability to pay dues under any head and alleged that U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is applicable. In the said reply the defendant/tenant alleged that the notice was vague.
(2.) WRITTEN statement was filed by respondent No. 2 (Kailash Chandra Gupta ). The said reply shows that receipt of the notice was not denied. Only plead ing, on the point, is to the effect that notice was vague on the ground mentioned therein. A perusal of the judgment of Judge, Small Cause Court (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) shows that no issue/point was framed regarding notice being invalid. Tenant did not raise grievance on this score nor challenged the validity of the notice. Copy of the memo of revision has been filed (Annexure C A-2 ). A perusal of para 2 of the memo of revision No. 83 of 1997 (Annexure C A-2) shows that tenant had merely alleged that notice was not clear and it was vague and, therefore, not valid in law and that he could not be evicted on that basis from the house in question.
(3.) AGAINST the judgment and order dated October 30,1979 passed by Judge, Small Cause Courts Civil Revision No. 83 of 1979 was filed which was allowed by the Revisional Authority, exercising its juris diction under Section 25, Provnicial Small Cause Courts Act. The revisional Court observed that no issue was framed but failed to appreciate correct position. The revisional Court has observed that "the fact about the notices were contested". Said observation is on the face of record perverse. I find that in memo of revision there is no averment that in spite of clear plea being raised no issue was framed by the Court below. In view of the above, the revisional Court was not justified in allow ing the plea on the question of validity of notice.;