Judgment (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ petition is directed against the judgment of the Judge, Small Causes Court, dated 14-10-1992 decreeing the suit for arrears of rent, ejectment and damages against the petitioners and the order dated 5-5-1995 passed by the respondent No. 1 confirming the said judgment and order in the appeal. (2.) FACTS of the case in brief are that the respondent No. 3 is a publish ing company registered under the Companies Act. Shri Ganesh Bhartiya, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, was employed as Sub Editor on the staff of erstwhile 'bharat' daily of respondent No. 4. He was allotted quarter No. 38 Leader Road, Allahabad, which belongs to respondent No. 4. Sri Ganesh Bhartiya retired from service of respondent No. 4 on 9-1-1981. A notice dated 2-11-1981 was given to him asking him to pay arrears of rent for the period 1-1-1981 to 31-10-1981 and to vacate the accommodation under his tenancy and his tenancy was terminated. The notice was served on him on 3-11-1981. Shri Ganesh Bhartiya expired on 2-2-1982. The respondent No. 4 filed Suit No. 237 of 1982 in the Court of Judge, Small Causes, Allahabad against the petitioners and other heirs of deceased Shri Ganesh Bhartiya on the allegation that the tenant had committed default in payment of arrears of rent and further the accommodation was given to him on account of fact that he was under employment of the plaintiff-respondent and his employment had ceased. (3.) THE suit was contested by the defendants and it was denied that the tenant had committed default in payment of arrears of rent or the accommodation in question was given on rent as part of employment of the plaintiff-respondent. (4.) THE Judge, Small Causes Court, recorded finding against the petitioners and the suit was decreed on 14-10-1992. THE petitioners preferred revision against aforesaid judgment and revision has bean dismissed by the respondent No. 1 on 5-5-1995. These judgments have been challenged in the instant writ petition. (4.) THE Judge, Small Causes Court, recorded finding against the petitioners and the suit was decreed on 14-10-1992. THE petitioners preferred revision against aforesaid judgment and revision has bean dismissed by the respondent No. 1 on 5-5-1995. These judgments have been challenged in the instant writ petition. The suit for eviction can be based if a tenant commits default in payment of arrears of rent and 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 as provided under Section 20 (2) (a) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. A tenant is also liable for eviction under Section 20 (2) (g) of the aforesaid Act if he was allowed to occupy the building as part of his contract of employment under the landlord and his employment has ceased. (5.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the finding of both the courts below that Shri Ganesh Bhartiya was allowed to occupy the building as part of contract of his employments under the plaintiff-respondent No. 4, is erroneous and perverse. I do not find any merit in this contention. THE courts below have found that Sri Ganesh Bhartiya was in the employment as Sub-Editor of the plaintiff-respondent and the quarter was given to him by the plaintiff-respondent. THE ledger was filed on behalf of respondent which indicated that rent was deducted from the salary of the employee. THE Judge, Small Causes Court further relied upon other evidence on record to arrive at the conclusion that the accommodation was given as part of contract of employment. There is no manifest error in the findings recorded by the courts below. (6.) THE next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Section 20 (2) (g) of the Act is not applicable as the quarter in question as it was taken on rent prior to enforcement of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and the said provision is applicable only when allotment is done after enforcement of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act only refers to the ground on which a tenant can be evicted and commencement of tenancy is not relevant factor regarding the ground on which the tenant can be evicted under sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act. The last submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the finding recorded by the courts below that the tenant committed default in payment of arrears of rent, is erroneous in law. It is a question of fact. There is no manifest error in the finding recorded by the courts below. Even if this finding is ignored, the tenant is liable for eviction on the finding recorded that the tenant was given possession of the quarter in question as part of con tract of his employment. (7.) IN view of the above, there is no merit in the writ petition and the writ petition is, accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.