Judgment A.K. Yog, J. (1) Abdul Rashid and another have filed this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and order dated 5.8.1998 passed by Court of Judge, Small Causes Court (Annexure-2 to the petition) confirmed by District Judge, Almora in revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act by judgment and order dated 5.5.2000. (2) A.U.S.C.C. Suit No. 1 of 1997 (Om Prakash vs. Abdul Rashid) was filed by one Om Prakash, landlord/owner of house No. 172 (New No. 64) Lala Bazar, Almora for seeking eviction of defendant (petitioner) as contemplated under Section 20(1) of this Act No. 13 of 1972 on the ground of default, material alteration etc. The Court of Judge, Small Causes decreed the suit by means of judgment and order dated 5.8.1998. Perusal of the trial Court judgment shows that the defendant petitioners contested the suit on the ground that the notice, as required under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 20(4) of the Act No. 13 of 1972, was not given in the instant case. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record recorded specific finding of fact to the effect that the notice under Section 20(2) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 read with Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act was a valid notice and the defendant failed to satisfy the requirement of conditions contained under Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. (3) The landlord-tenant relationship was not denied in the instant case and the defendant also admitted that rent at the rate of Rs. 54/- per month in paragraph 3 of the written statement. The trial Court after perusing the evidence on record found that the amount was not deposed according to Section 20(4) of the Act and the same was short even according to calculation given by the defendant (particular page 61 of the writ petition paper book). (4) The learned counsel for the petitioners referred to ground No. 10 (added by way of amendment) and has attempted to show that the amount claimed by the plaintiff in the suit and in the notice in question were not inconsonance with each other. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, did not show from the written statement that such a defence was taken in the written statement. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, did not show from the written statement that such a defence was taken in the written statement. Even the judgment of trial Court does not indicate that any argument on this aspect was advanced before the trial Court. The trial Court judgment was challenged by filing revision under Section 26 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act and the said revision has also been dismissed. Perusal of the revisional order shows that the revisional Court applied its mind independently to the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners. There is no averment in the petition that any argument advanced by the petitioners has not been considered or omitted. In this view of the matter the petitioners cannot be allowed to raise new argument, particularly when requisite pleadings are missing and no legal ground has been taken in the petition specifying the error. (5) The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he has number of arguments to advance, but fails to point out whether such arguments were taken or advanced or incorporated in the written statement at the initial stage. No party can be permitted to take other party by surprise and that too by raising new arguments in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (6) Perusal of the orders of the Courts below show that the authorities have considered the matter in detail and the findings recorded by them cannot be interfered by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, or otherwise assuming the role of trial Court or appellate Court. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. Interim order, if any, are discharged. Petition dismissed.