SHIV CHARAN SHARMA, J. The present writ petition has been instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the judgment and decree date 29th April, 2008 passed by the District Judge, Faizabad in S. C. C. Revision No. 28/2008, Shakeel Ahmad Vs Prem Sagar as well as the judgment and decree dated 26th October, 2006 passed by Judge, Small Causes Court, Faizabad in S. C. C. Suit No. 11/2003, Prem Sagar Vs Shakeel Ahmad. By the impugned judgments and decrees, both the courts below decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The opposite party instituted a suit for recovery of /arrears of rent and expenses for use and occupation and also for eviction of the tenant-petitioner from the property in dispute and the revisional court in revision, dismissed the revision and affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court. 2. The brief narration of the facts of the case shows that the plaintiff-opposite party instituted a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and expenses for use and occupation of Rs. 7200/- and also for eviction of the tenant from the property in dispute. It has been alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff is the owner- landlord of the building, House No. 9/6/69, Sagar Market, Rikabganj Ward, Rikabganj, Faizabad and the defendant is the tenant of one of the shops numbered as 4 situated in this building as fully described in the plaint at the monthly rent of Rs. 200/- That the defendant was defaulter in payment of rent and he was not in the habit of paying the rent month to month. That the rent was due towards the defendant for the month of May, 2000 upto the month of April, 2003. That a notice of demand and termination of tenancy was served by registered post through an advocate on 19th May, 2003. One copy of the notice was also sent under the certificate of posting on 21st May, 2003. As the notices sent by the registered post as well as under the certificate of posting were not received unserved, hence, a presumption was drawn of sufficient service and inspite of sufficient service, the defendant neither paid the arrears of rent nor vacated the property in dispute. Hence, the present suit was instituted. 3. As the notices sent by the registered post as well as under the certificate of posting were not received unserved, hence, a presumption was drawn of sufficient service and inspite of sufficient service, the defendant neither paid the arrears of rent nor vacated the property in dispute. Hence, the present suit was instituted. 3. The defendant-petitioner contested the suit, filed Written Statement and denied from the allegations of the plaint. It has been alleged that the property in dispute was constructed earlier to the year 1980. That the defendant is the tenant of the property in dispute continuously from the month of April, 1983. That the tenancy was created by a written agreement at the monthly rent of Rs. 100/- initially. That the name of defendant has also been entered in the record of the Nagar Paliak as tenant. That the original copy of the agreement is in the possession of the defendant. That the defendant had been paying the rent to the landlord regularly. That the rent for the month of July, 1998 upto April, 2000 was paid on 15th July, 2000 and a receipt was also obtained by the tenant. That the rent for the month of May, 2000 upto the month of May, 2002 was paid by a cheque dated 15th July, 2002 of Rs. 5,000/- and this amount was paid by cheque of the account of Izharul-Haq, a relation of the defendant, but no rent receipt was delivered by the plaintiff on the pretext that after receiving the payment, receipt shall be issued, but afterwards, no rent receipt was delivered. That the rent for the months of June, 2002 & July, 2002 could not be paid due to paucity of funds. That whenever the defendant went to the plaintiff to pay the rent, he avoided to receive the rent and he stated that he will receive the rent of 2-3 years at a time. Hence, the defendant was assured that the rent will be paid whenever the plaintiff will demand the same. That the defendant is ready and willing to pay the rent for the month of June, 2002 upto April, 2004. That an attempt was made for compromise also but the same could not be materialized due to indifferent attitude of the plaintiff. Hence, the rent of Rs. 4,600/- was deposited in the court by tender. That the defendant is ready and willing to pay the rent for the month of June, 2002 upto April, 2004. That an attempt was made for compromise also but the same could not be materialized due to indifferent attitude of the plaintiff. Hence, the rent of Rs. 4,600/- was deposited in the court by tender. That the plaintiff has got no right to get the property vacated. That the suit is liable to be dismissed. 4. Before the trial court, both the parties produced their evidences oral as well as documentary evidences and the trial court for the decision of the suit, framed 4 Issues. Issue No. 1 was regarding the landlord and tenant. Issue no. 2 was regarding the default in payment of rent. Issue No. 3 was regarding the service of notice to the defendant. All the three issues were decided against the defendant- petitioner and on the basis of the findings on these issues, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed with cost for recovery of arrears of rent and expenses for use and occupation and also for eviction of the defendant from the property in dispute. After being aggrieved from the judgment of the trial court, the petitioner filed a S. C. C. Revision No. 28/2008, Shakeel Ahmad Vs Prem Sagar. This revision was also dismissed by the revisional court vide judgment and decree dated 29th April, 2008. After being aggrieved from the judgment and decree of the revisional court, the present writ petition has been instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner namely Sri Amit Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri S. K. Mehrotra, learned Senior Advocate for the opposite parties and perused the entire material on record. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that firstly no rent for more than 4 months was due against the petitioner. That a cheque was delivered of Rs. 5,000/- for payment of rent for the month from May, 2000 upto May, 2002. That the receipts were not issued. That the petitioner also tried to pay the rent of the subsequent months, but the plaintiff was reluctant to receive this amount of rent and that after filing of the suit, the petitioner tried to pay the rent, but on refusal to receive the rent, he deposited the same in the court. That the receipts were not issued. That the petitioner also tried to pay the rent of the subsequent months, but the plaintiff was reluctant to receive this amount of rent and that after filing of the suit, the petitioner tried to pay the rent, but on refusal to receive the rent, he deposited the same in the court. Learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that no notice for termination of tenancy and demand of rent was received by the defendant-petitioner. That intentionally, the notice was issued at the address of the house of the defendant-petitioner whereas the petitioner is carrying on a business in a shop and in the morning, after locking the house, he used to remain at the shop for the entire day and as the petitioner never remained available at the house, hence, there was no question of service of notice. That it was in the knowledge of the opposite party that during the day time, the petitioner shall not be available at his house, then the opposite party should have sent the notice at the address of the shop of the petitioner and not at the address of his house. Learned counsel also argued that a caveat was issued at the address of the shop of the petitioner. He also argued that neither there was any default in payment of rent nor any valid notice was served on the petitioner. Hence, both the courts below committed gross illegality in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of arrears of rent and expenses for use and occupation and also for eviction. 7. Learned counsel for the opposite parties disputed the arguments of leaned counsel for the petitioner. He argued that no rent was paid even for the month of May, 2000 upto May, 2002 by cheque as alleged in the Written Statement. He also argued that according to the averments of the Written Statement, a rent note was executed in between the parties for creation of the tenancy and it was settled in the agreement rent note that after payment of the rent, receipt shall be issued and that no rent shall be paid without issuing any rent receipt. That when this was the condition of the agreement, then there was no question of making the payment of rent of two years without obtaining any receipt. That when this was the condition of the agreement, then there was no question of making the payment of rent of two years without obtaining any receipt. Learned counsel argued that no cheque was issued by the defendant of his own account rather the cheque was issued of the account of Izharul Haq whereas the correct fact is that said Izharul-Haq purchased a pillow of Rs. 5,100/- from the shop of the plaintiff and for the payment of the price of that pillow, this cheque was delivered by Izharul Haq and if anything has been written on the back of the cheque, then the opposite party has no concern with it. He also argued that even no rent was paid for the period from May, 2002 upto April, 2003, then there was arrears of more than 4 months. That a notice of demand and termination of tenancy was served. Under these circumstances, the defendant committed default as provided under section 20 (2) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. That both the courts below after considering the evidence of the parties and circumstances of the case recorded the findings of fact that the defendant was in arrears of rent of more than 4 months and that no rent was deposited as provided under section 20 (4) of the Act. Learned counsel also argued that in view of several judgments of this court, if a notice of demand and termination of tenancy is sent by registered post at the correct address and the same is not received back unserved, then a presumption will be drawn of sufficient service. That in the present case, the notice was sent by the registered post as well as under the certificate of posting and both the notices were not received back unserved. Under these circumstances, only a presumption, according to law, will be drawn of sufficient service. Learned Counsel also stated that the findings of facts have been recorded by both the courts below regarding the validity and service of notice and this court in a writ jurisdiction cannot set aside the findings of facts unless the same are found perverse and the findings recorded by both the courts below are not perverse. 8. I have considered all the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 8. I have considered all the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions of learned counsel for the parties. As has been stated above that a suit was filed by the plaintiff-opposite party for service of notice of demand and termination of the tenancy. The plaintiff alleged that the petitioner failed to pay the rent for the month from May, 2000 upto April, 2003. The defendant-petitioner alleged that the rent was paid of two years from May, 2000 upto May, 2002 by cheque of the account of Izharul Haq, his close relation, but the rent receipt was not issued. Although both the courts below recorded a finding of fact on this point that no such cheque was issued by the petitioner of the account of Izharul Haq for payment of arrears of rent. Even then, plaintiff examined himself only to prove this fact. Izharul Haq could not be produced before the courts below in evidence as he had already died. But no reason has been mentioned as to why the cheque for the payment of arrears of rent was not issued by the defendant of his own account and I failed to understand as to why the defendant believed this contention of the plaintiff that a rent receipt shall be issued later on. That the defendant never pressurized the plaintiff to issue a rent receipt upto the month of May, 2002. 9. It is a definite case of the plaintiff that Izharul Haq issued a cheque of Rs. 5,000/- but this cheque was not issued by the defendant for payment of arrears of rent rather Izharul Haq issued this cheque for payment of the price of pillow (Gadda) purchased by him from the shop of the plaintiff-opposite party. I do not find any justification to disagree with this finding of fact recorded by both the courts below and this finding cannot be said perverse. There are circumstances to show that the cheque was not issued by the defendant for payment of arrears of rent rather the cheque was issued by Izharul Haq for payment of the price of pillow purchased by him from the shop of the plaintiff-opposite party. There are circumstances to show that the cheque was not issued by the defendant for payment of arrears of rent rather the cheque was issued by Izharul Haq for payment of the price of pillow purchased by him from the shop of the plaintiff-opposite party. Moreover, it is also material to mention that according to the averment of the petitioner himself in his Written Statement, no rent was paid by him for the month from June, 2002 upto April, 2003 and if for the sake of arguments, it may be presumed and believed that a cheque for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was issued of the account of Izharul Haq for payment of arrears of rent, then why the rent was not paid of the subsequent months from June, 2002 upto April, 2002. In view of section 20 (2) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, if a tenant is in arrears for payment of rent for more than 4 months, then he may be treated as defaulter and under these circumstances, it can be inferred that at the time of termination of tenancy, the defendant was in arrears for payment of rent for more than 4 months. Moreover, it is also a fact that the rent was not paid to avoid ejectment under section 20 (4) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and the rent was deposited during the proceedings of the suit under Order 15 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under section 20 (4) of Act, the entire arrears of rent alongwith cost of the suit and advocates court fees and interest thereon is to be deposited on the first day of hearing of the case unconditionally whereas under Order 15 Rule 5 C. P. C, the admitted rent is to be deposited regularly upto the first week of every calender month and in case of non payment of admitted rent, the defence is to be struck off of the tenant and if the petitioner has deposited any rent during the proceedings of the suit then, the benefit under Order 15 Rule 5 C. P. C. shall be available to him and not under section 20 (4) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. And if the tenant deposits the rent and other amount according to the conditions of section 20 (4), then no decree for eviction can be passed against the tenant. But in the present case, the rent was not deposited under section 20 (4) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the defendant-petitioner was in arrears of rent for more than 4 months. That a notice for demand of arrears of rent and termination of tenancy was issued on behalf of the plaintiff through an advocate on 19th May, 2003 and the findings of facts recorded by the courts below are based on sound reasoning and on the basis of the evidence present on the record. By no stretch or reasoning, the findings of facts recorded by the courts below can be called perverse. Hence, this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot interfere in the findings of facts unless they are perverse. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that there was no sufficient service of notice for demand and termination of tenancy. It has been alleged in the plaint that when the rent was due for more than 4 months from May, 2000 upto April, 2003, then a notice of demand and termination of tenancy was served to the petitioner though an advocate on 19th May, 2003 and this notice was issued by the registered post on 19th May, 2003. However, another notice was also sent under the certificate of positing on dated 21st May, 2003 and the definite averment of the plaintiff is that notices issued by registered post as well as under the certificate of posting were not received back unserved. Hence, in view of the provision of law and numerous judgments of this court, a presumption shall be drawn of sufficient service and that the courts below placed the reliance on the judgment of this court for drawing a presumption of sufficient service. The plaintiff in his statement stated this fact. Hence, in view of the provision of law and numerous judgments of this court, a presumption shall be drawn of sufficient service and that the courts below placed the reliance on the judgment of this court for drawing a presumption of sufficient service. The plaintiff in his statement stated this fact. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that purposely and intentionally, the notice was issued at the address of the house of the petitioner and as there is no female member in the house and in the morning, the petitioner used to leave the house and for the entire day, he remained at his shop and the plaintiff was knowing this fact, but even then, the notice was not sent at the address of shop of the defendant rather notice was sent at the address of the house. But this fact has not been disputed that the address mentioned in the notice was not correct and in view of the judgment cited by the court below, if a notice has been issued on the correct address of the defendant, then a presumption will be drawn of sufficient service. It has not been shown that the address of the defendant was wrong. Moreover, if the postman went at the address to deliver the notice and the tenant is not available then the postman could have either returned or could have diverted at the correct address, but it was not done in the present case. This fact also shows that there was sufficient service of notice to the defendant. It has not been shown that the postman in collusion with the plaintiff did not return the notice or did not divert the notice. Both the courts below recorded a finding of fact that there was sufficient service of notice. I do not find any justification to presume that this finding of fact is perverse. 11. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that there appears no illegality or impropriety in the findings recorded by both the courts below. 12. For the reasons mentioned above, I am of the opinion that there is no justification to entertain this writ petition for hearing or to reverse the findings of the courts below and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. .