JUDGMENT Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - This is a tenant's petition arising out of the jurisdiction of Judge, Small Causes. The landlord had brought a suit consequent upon a notice dated 23-11-1970 to the effect that rent was in arrears and a default having been committed, the tenant was liable to be ejected. 2. The tenant resisted the suit with pleas that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant and that there was no arrears as he had deposited with the Court the amount sought by the landlord before the appropriate Court. The Judge, Small Causes dismissed the suit to hold that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant, that there is no default and that the notice was invalid because it used the present tense. 3. Learned District Judge in a revision corrected the interpretation of the Judge, Small Causes on the notice and remanded the matter back on three issues before the trial court for a decision afresh. Against this decision of the learned District judge in remanding the matter for decision on the three issues in accordance with law the tenant has filed the present petition. The District Judge has rightly corrected the learned Judge, Small Causes on the matter relating to the interpretation of the notice and declaring the findings on the three issues as perverse. 4. The District Judge was not wrong when he corrected the Judge Small Causes to the effect that the notice given by the landlord was not invalid as the form and the intention of the notice is to be looked into. On this proposition the District Judge is fortified by a decision of this Court reported in 1980 ARC 44 which in effect lays down that the intention of the notice is to be looked into from its language and it is not to be faulted merely on the ground that some minor defect may be found in it. For this proposition, this Court in its decision (supra) was relying on a decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 1977 SC 11. The trial court will bear these decisions in mind while deciding the matter afresh on this issue. 5. On the other two issues the District Judge, found the findings of the Judge, Small Causes perverse. For this proposition, this Court in its decision (supra) was relying on a decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 1977 SC 11. The trial court will bear these decisions in mind while deciding the matter afresh on this issue. 5. On the other two issues the District Judge, found the findings of the Judge, Small Causes perverse. Learned District Judge noticed that the relationship of landlord and tenant was admitted between the parties from the record of the written statement. The defendant tenant had attempted to resile from this admission and moved an application for amendment of the written statement which was rejected and a revision preferred against this by the tenant was dismissed and as such the defendant tenant could not be permitted to take an inconsistent plea and there was no occasion for the trial court to hold that there existed no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. In the matter whether the tenant had committed default or not, the District Judge noticed that the trial court had given a contradictory finding to the effect that the monies in question had been deposited and simultaneously observed that the tenant was a defaulter. 6. Thus, the learned District Judge, had rightly remanded the matter back to the trial court for a decision afresh on the validity of the notice, the relationship of landlord and tenant and whether default had been committed in reference to payment of arrears by the tenant. 7. There is no illegality in the order of remand dated 24th December 1986 passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Etah and it is not appropriate for this court to interfere with this order. The petition is thus dismissed.