State of U.P. vs District Judge and Another

Anjani Kumar, J.—The petitioner, aggrieved by an order dated 26.10.1983 passed by the revisional court whereby the revisional court reversed the order dated 10.3.1983 passed by the trial court, approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The relationship between the petitioner and respondent is not disputed that the petitioner is tenant and respondent is landlord. It is also not disputed that provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable to the premises in question. The landlord filed a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment by giving notice which is a composite notice u/s 106 of Transfer of Property Act read with Section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure. The trial court, on the ground that there cannot be composite notice, dismissed the suit. On revision the revisional court relied upon a decision in State of U. P. v. D.C. Gupta 1983 ACJ 263, wherein this Court held that composite notice u/s 106 of Transfer of Property Act and u/s 80 of CPC is a valid notice. The revisional court, therefore, set aside the order passed by the trial court and decreed the suit filed for the arrears of rent and ejectment.

In view of law relied upon by the revisional court it cannot be said that revisional court has interfered in exercise of revisional power, as suggested by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in contravention of provisions of law.

This writ petition, therefore, has no force and is accordingly dismissed.