JUDGMENT Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - This is a petition at the behest of the tenant consequent upon two non-concurrent judgments and arising out of the jurisdiction of the Judge, Small Cause Court. Learned IInd Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar City, in revision by the judgment dated 29.1.1987 has decreed the suit of the landlord. 2. Issues which were considered before the learned District Judge aforesaid in revision were arrears of rent and defects in the notice. 3. On facts, the courts below came to the conclusion that the rent which the landlord was entitled to receive was Rs. 80/- per month and not Rs. 45/-. This issue was debated seriously upon evidence being submitted by both the parties. It was contended on behalf of the landlord that the rent and the tenancy had been settled between the wives of the plaintiff-landlord and the defendant-tenant. For reasons that both of them were Muslims by religion and their respective wives were purdanashin and no contradictory evidence was forthcoming at the behest of either of them, the District Judge thought it appropriate to accept that the rent was Rs. 80/- per month and not Rs. 45/- per month. Learned District Judge noticed, that indeed if the defendant-tenant desired to contradict the fact regarding the amount of rent which was at issue, then he could have produced his wife to deny the settlement of tenancy that the rent was not Rs. 80/- per month. This, the rent did not do and this Court in its present jurisdiction cannot interfere with this finding of fact. 4. The other issue debated before the learned District Judge in revision was about the infirmity of the notice which had been issued on behalf of the landlord. The tenant had attempted to point defects in the notice to the effect that (1) it did not identify the property properly and (2) that the suit had not been instituted beyond 30 days of the receipt of the notice. On the identity of the property, the learned District Judge observed that the description in the notice was sufficient to leave the defendant in no doubt about the identity of the property and no further particulars, specific or otherwise were required to be given by the land lord in pursuance to the filing of the suit. On the identity of the property, the learned District Judge observed that the description in the notice was sufficient to leave the defendant in no doubt about the identity of the property and no further particulars, specific or otherwise were required to be given by the land lord in pursuance to the filing of the suit. On the matter of notice the learned District Judge observed that the intention of the notice is to be looked into from its language and the notice is not to be defaulted merely on the ground that minor defect can be found in it. For this proposition, the learned District Judge relied on a decision of this Court reported in 1980 A.R.C. p. 43, which in turn relied on a decision of Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 11. 5. No other point was raised before the learned District Judge and this Court finds it difficult to interfere in the order and judgment of the District Judge which is sought to be impugned under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus this writ petition is dismissed.