JUDGMENT Hon'ble Devendra Pratap Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the respondent caveator. 2. This petition is directed against concurrent judgments dated 22.11.2008 and 8.3.2010 by which a suit for eviction and arrears of rent filed by the respondent landlord has been decreed by both the courts below. 3. It appears that the respondent landlord purchased House No. 266, Awas Vikas Colony, Nandanpura, Jhansi through registered sale deed dated 4.8.1992 from its erstwhile owner Om Prakash Sahu wherein the petitioner was a sitting tenant. After purchase he earlier filed a regular suit no. 164 of 1993 against the tenant for his eviction treating him to be a licensee of his transferor wherein the petitioner took a plea that he was a tenant of his transferor at Rs. 80/- per month. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that the petitioner was a tenant at Rs. 80/- per month and was not a licensee. The aforesaid judgment was affirmed in appeal. Thereafter the petitioner sent a registered notice claiming rent from 4th August, 1992 at the rate of Rs. 80/- per month and alleging that he has since not been paid any rent and determined the tenancy. When no rent was paid nor the petitioner vacated the premises he preferred the present suit no. 16 of 2006 before the Judge Small Causes with the aforesaid allegations. After contest both the courts below have decreed the suit. 4. It is firstly urged on behalf of the petitioner that since he was a licensee and by judgment dated 27.1.2006 he had been held to be a tenant, on the date of the notice dated 20.2.2006 there could not have been four months default and since there was no contract between the parties creating tenancy, in view of Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, the suit could not have been decreed. 5. A copy of the appellate judgment is on record and it shows that the petitioner admitted that he was a tenant of the erstwhile owner at Rs. 80/- per month and continued to be the tenant of the landlord after the purchase. The courts found that at the time of purchase the petitioner was a tenant at Rs. 80/- per month and continued to be such after purchase. 80/- per month and continued to be the tenant of the landlord after the purchase. The courts found that at the time of purchase the petitioner was a tenant at Rs. 80/- per month and continued to be such after purchase. It is not that the petitioner became a tenant after the judgment and the landlord rightly served the notice dated 20.2.2006 treating him a defaulter of more than four months as no rent was paid after the purchase on 4.8.1993. So far as the contract of tenancy is concerned, it was implied contract of tenancy with the landlord after the purchase. 6. It is then urged that the notice was served on the incorrect address and therefore, the service was not sufficient. 7. Both the courts below have found as matter of fact that even if the service was at the House No. A-267, which was in the name of the tenant's wife and son, it would be deemed service. This finding of fact is based on evidence on record which has not been shown to be perverse. 8. No other point has been urged. 9. For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected. 10. After the order was dictated, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions of his client, has given an undertaking that some reasonable time may be granted to vacate the premises and she is prepared to pay the rent also. 11. Accordingly, the petitioner shall not be evicted from the disputed premises on or before 13.8.2010 provided she deposits the entire rent uptill that date with the court below within three weeks from today which shall be released in favour of the landlord. In case of default, this order shall stand vacated. The petitioner is further directed to hand over peaceful and vacant possession to the respondent landlord without creating any third party rights on or before 13.8.2010.