JUDGMENT B D. Agrawal, J. - By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have challenged the decision of the IV Additional District Judge, Azamgarh, dated 27th August, 1980. 2. Respondent No. 2 was a tenant in the shop premises situate in Mauja Mahanagar Tahsil Lalganj, district Azamgarh, on behalf of the petitioners. The rent payable was rupees thirty-five per month. The tenancy was from month to month. On 5-9-1975 the petitioners gave notice under registered cover to the respondent No. 2 under Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act. The notice was served upon the respondent No. 2 on September 5. 1975. The rent was, however not deposited or paid within the period indicated in the notice. The petitioners brought a suit for eviction and arrears of rent against the respondent No. 2. The suit was decreed by the trial court on April 1, 1975. In revision filed by the respondent No. 2 the decree for eviction was reversed by the IV Additional District Judge, Azamgarh, on Angst 27, 1980, observing that the petitioners had not proved the notice claimed to have been given to the respondent No.2. 3. Aggrieved the petitioners-landlords have approached this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that from the finding on the point of fact recorded by the revisional authority it is manifest that service of the notice impugned was established and there is, therefore, error manifest on the record in the relief for eviction having been declined on this score. There is no dispute that the building in question is out side the purview of the U.P. Act. X111 of 1972. The respondent no.2 claimed the benefit under section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, out that could not be established since the tenancy in this case has been terminated by a simple notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and not on account of the forfeiture envisaged under Section 114 of that Act. The respondent No. 2 also, at one stage, claimed benefit under Section 30 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, but that was given up because the amount contemplated therein had not been deposited. The respondent No. 2 also, at one stage, claimed benefit under Section 30 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, but that was given up because the amount contemplated therein had not been deposited. In so far as the notice is concerned, the revisional authority records that the respondent admitted the service of notice dated September 5,1975, and pleaded that the notice had not been signed by the deceased Banke Lai (father or the petitioners) and that it was invalid. Since the service of the notice was thus admitted by the respondent No. 2, it was up to him to have placed on record the notice as served upon him in order to establish that the same had not been signed by the petitioners' father or that it was invalid for any other reason. The petitioners had on their own part, placed on record a copy of the said notice and the petitioner No. 1 had also given his statement on oath in proof thereof as noticed by the revisional court and also the trial court. In view of the failure on the part of the respondent No. 2 to establish invalidity in the notice or the lack of signature of the petitioners' father over the same, the basis for the decree for eviction having been declined to the petitioners disappears. 5. In view of the discussion made above, the petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The decision of the IV Additional District Judge,. Azamgarh, dated August 27, 1980, (Annexure-IV to the writ petition) is set aside so far as the reversal of the decree for eviction passed by the trial court is concerned. The respondent No. 2 shall have six months to vacate. In the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.