JUDGMENT S.H.A. Raza, J. - The petitioner has assailed the order, dated January 16, 1987, passed by Additional Judge, Small Causes, Lucknow, opposite party No. 3 and the order dated April 18, 1988, passed by Ist Additional District Judge, Lucknow, opposite party No. 4, as contained in Annexures 5 and 6 respectively by means of which the suit filed by the opposite parties 1 and 2, for eviction and arrears of rent was decreed against the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid orders mainly on the ground that the composite notice of demand and termination of tenancy which was served upon him was not at all valid for the reason of the fact that no notice of demand as contemplated under Section 20(2)(a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 was ever served upon the petitioner before the institution of the suit. The petitioner's submission in nutshell is that a perusal of the notice itself indicates that no demand was made at all and as such the suit was not maintainable. 3. Before going into the merits of the argument advanced by the parties it is necessary to look into the contents of the composite notice of demand as well as termination of the tenancy which admittedly was served upon the petitioner of writ petition No. 3009 of 1988 which is reproduced herein under :- From : Vijay Kumar Khare, Advocate 28/117, Arya Nagar, Lucknow. Lucknow Dated 8.5.1984 To, Jagdish Prasad R/o, Jhopri, situated at Plot No. 423/5-D, Opp. Shanker Bhawan, Pandariba, Lucknow. Dear Sir, I have been instructed by my client Smt. Krishna Keswani, widow of late Sri Sanwal Das Keswani and Raj Kumar Keswani, s/o late Sri Asudamal Keswani, resident of C.B.I. Building, Pandariba, Lucknow to serve you the following notice :- 1. That my clients are the owners of Plot No. 423/5-D, Pandariba, Lucknow through a registered sale-deed dated 18th April, 1983. 2. That you are the tenant of a jhopri situated at Plot No. 423/5-D, Pandariba, Lucknow at the rent of Rs. 4.50 per month. 3. That my clients after purchasing the said plot gave you many reminders for payment of the rent of the said jhopri. 4. 2. That you are the tenant of a jhopri situated at Plot No. 423/5-D, Pandariba, Lucknow at the rent of Rs. 4.50 per month. 3. That my clients after purchasing the said plot gave you many reminders for payment of the rent of the said jhopri. 4. That you are habitual defaulter, any of my clients does not want to let your continue with your tenancy and hence this notice to quit as contemplated by Section 106, T.P. Act is being delivered to you determining and terminating you tenance on the expiry of 30 days from the date of service of his notice where after you will cease to be the tenant of my clients and you are requested to vacate the premises and hand over the peaceful possession to my clients on the expiry of above stipulated period. 5. That in the event of your failure to comply with the terms of this notice my clients shall bring appropriate legal action in the competent Court of law for your ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent and in that case you will be saddled with all costs and consequences. Thanking you, Yours faithfully (V.K. Khare) Advocate." 3. Similar notices have been sent to the petitioners of other writ petitions. 4. A perusal of the said notice indicates that it is not at all mentioned that how much rent has fallen due which the petitioner has not paid and no demand for payment of rent has been mentioned in the notice. Under Section 20(2)(a) of the Act, a tenant can only be evicted on the ground of default if he is in arrears of rent for not less than four months and has failed to pay the same to the landlord within one month from the date of service upon him of a notice of demand. In the present case, neither any demand has been made nor it is mentioned that as to whether the petitioner was in arrears of rent for not less than four months. Hence, it cannot be said to be a valid notice of the demand. Notice of demand of arrears of rent and termination of tenancy can be lawfully given simultaneously. But the requirements of both the notices ought to be fulfilled keeping the two things separate and doubt. Hence, it cannot be said to be a valid notice of the demand. Notice of demand of arrears of rent and termination of tenancy can be lawfully given simultaneously. But the requirements of both the notices ought to be fulfilled keeping the two things separate and doubt. In the present case, although notice for determining or terminating the tenancy had been clearly indicated but neither any valid notice of demand was served upon the petitioner nor it has been mentioned that the petitioner has fallen in arrears of rent for not less than four months and has failed to pay the same to the landlord within one month from the date of service upon him of the notice of demand. The Courts below, i.e., opposite parties 3 and 4 by ignoring this aspect of the matter have committed manifest error of law in decreeing the suit for eviction and arrears of rent against the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2 relying upon (1988)2 SCC 165 , argued that the notice of the landlord, stating therein about the arrears of rent and threatening to file a suit for eviction against the tenant, was sufficient and it was implied in the notice that the tenant i.e., the petitioner was in arrears of rent. A perusal of this authority would clearly indicate that in the said notice it was clearly mentioned that the tenant had not paid the rent for the months of February, March and April, 1982 and it was mentioned in the notice that the sum of Rs. 7,800 was due against him. But in the instant case neither the period since when the petitioner had not paid the rent nor the total amount of rent which had fallen due was at all mentioned. The tenant was not even called upon to pay the arrears of rent. Their Lordship of the Supreme Court after finding the clear intention of the landlord rightly held that on reading of the notice alongwith the letter, dated June 1, 1982, by means of which the arrears of rent of definite period was demanded it appears that the respondent was in arrears of rent for the months mentioned hereinbefore and was intimated that in default of payment of rent the eviction would follow in accordance with law. It was further held 'this is the proper way of reading the notice and in our view the appropriate logical way in which notices of such type should be read. These notices must be read in commonsense point of view bearing in mind how such notices are understood by ordinary people. That is how the appellant, it appears from the reply and the background of the previous letter to be mentioned hereinafter understood the notice." 6. The defect in the composite notice of the present case is fatal and the defect of the notice on the basis of which suit for eviction was filed cannot be cured. The aforesaid authority of Hon'ble Supreme Court is quite distinguishable and does not apply to the facts of the present case. 7. In view of the aforesaid observations, the aforesaid writ petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed and the impugned orders, dated January 16, 1987 and April 18, 1988, passed by Additional Judge, Small Causes, Lucknow, opposite party No. 3 and Additional District Judge, Lucknow, opposite party No. 4, respectively are quashed.