JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing impugned order dated 7.8.2010 passed by respondent No. 1, Additional District Judge, Room No. 1, Bareilly in SCC Revision No. 28 of 2009, M/s Arya Construction Designers registered office- Mirdhangali Bareilly and others v. Babu Tandon Lal alias Pappu and another. 3. Brief facts of the case are that Arya Sabha, Bareilly executed a registered agreement dated 3.5.1989 in favour of respondent IInd set for construction of a shopping complex at Chaupla Road Bareilly. Respondent IInd set allotted shop No. 19, area 12’x18' in the complex @f Rs. 1200/- per month to the petitioner. Lease deed was executed on 6/7.11.2000 which was signed by respondent IInd set, the petitioner as well as respondent IIIrd set. It was mentioned therein that respondent IInd set will receive Rs. 60,000/- advance as security money (refundable) without interest from them which was paid to respondent IInd. 4. It is claimed by the respondent IInd set that petitioner violated the terms of the lease-deed; that he and respondent IIIrd set had partitioned shop No. 19 aforesaid without permission from them. It is also claimed by respondent IInd set that the petitioner and respondent IIIrd set committed default in payment of rent of the aforesaid shop No. 19, since October, 2005 onwards and were harassing the own tenanted shop keepers by burning coal emitting thick smokes which has compelled the landlords to serve notice of termination of tenancy of shop No. 19 in question under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act dated 19/20.7.2006. The petitioner and the respondent IIIrd set paid the rent to respondent IInd set in respect of partitioned shop No. 19. After receipt of rent respondent IInd set allotted part of shop No. 19 to the petitioner and the other part numbered as shop No. 19A to respondent IIIrd set on rent @ Rs. 600/- per month each. According to the respondent IInd set, the defendant respondent IIIrd set vacated shop No. 19A. Thereafter it was allotted to one Sartaz by respondent IInd set on same terms by executing another lease deed dated 1.6.2007. 5. 600/- per month each. According to the respondent IInd set, the defendant respondent IIIrd set vacated shop No. 19A. Thereafter it was allotted to one Sartaz by respondent IInd set on same terms by executing another lease deed dated 1.6.2007. 5. It is stated by the petitioner that the respondent IInd set has done all exercise with intention to create evidence that the terms of lease-deed dated 6/7.11.2000 have been violated by the petitioner so that eviction proceedings against him may be justified compelling the petitioner to file Original Suit No. 32 of 2007 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bareilly against the respondent IInd set for restraining him from eviction. An injunction order dated 19.11.2007 was granted in favour of the petitioner calling for report of the Court Amin with regard to the site. Thereafter, respondent IInd set waived off the earlier notice dated 19/20.7.2006 and on 23.12.2006 issued a separate rent receipt to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 600/- per month and also validated the partitioned premises of shop No. 19 in shop No’s. 19. 6. The respondent IInd set appeared before the Court below and has filed their written statements annexing therewith photocopy of the notice relating to demand of arrears of rent dated 12.3.2007 alongwith photocopy of postal receipt. The petitioner submitted that in fact shop No. 19 which was let out to him at the rate of Rs. 1200/- per month was never partitioned and his security amount of Rs. 30,000/- is lying with the respondent IInd set; that he had offered rent for the months of December,2006, January and February, 2007 total amounting to Rs. 36,00/- but it was refused by the landlords, hence the amount of rent was sent through money order which was also not accepted by them and in these circumstances it cannot be said that there was no default by the petitioner towards payment of rent. 7. SCC suit No. 22 of 2007 was filed before the Court of Judge Small Causes Court, Bareilly by the respondent IInd set against the petitioner for eviction from the property in suit on the ground of default in payment of rent for the months of December,2006, January and February, 2007. 7. SCC suit No. 22 of 2007 was filed before the Court of Judge Small Causes Court, Bareilly by the respondent IInd set against the petitioner for eviction from the property in suit on the ground of default in payment of rent for the months of December,2006, January and February, 2007. The petitioner filed his written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint stating that the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act dated 13.3.2007 was never sent to him. 8. After going through the record and hearing the parties the trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 19.8.2009. 9. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 19.8.2009 SCC Revision No. 28 of 2009 was preferred by the landlord before the Revisional Court which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 7.8.2010, which has given rise to the instant writ petition. 10. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is three foulds. firstly that the notice dated 13.3.2007 was not served upon the petitioner; secondly that what would be the status of the tenant after termination of tenancy; and thirdly that security amount of Rs. 30,000/- was already with the landlord, hence, if any amount of rent was due it could have been adjusted from the security amount so that there could not be any default in payment of rent. 11. 30,000/- was already with the landlord, hence, if any amount of rent was due it could have been adjusted from the security amount so that there could not be any default in payment of rent. 11. In support of his first contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the finding of the Revisional Court on issue No. 2 in respect of service of notice upon the petitioner which is as under : ^^tgka rd uksfVl dk iz'u gS fo}ku voj U;k;ky; us fnukad 19-7-2006 o 13-3-2007 ds lacU/k esa fofu'p; fcUnq cuk;k gS tks bl okn dk fo"k; gh ugha gS uksfVl tks fn;k x;k gS og tqykbZ 2007 dk fn;k x;k gSA ftlds vk/kkj ij ;g eqdnek izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA o"kZ 2006 ds uksfVl dk o.kZu rks dsoy blfy, j[kk x;k gS fd nqdku esa nksuksa fdjk;snkj us vkil esa gh feydj caVokjk dj fy;kA mlds ckn edku ekfyd us nqdku ds nks Hkkx gksus dh jtkeanh ns nh vkSj vyx&vyx izR;sd nqdku dh 600 :i;s dh jlhn dkV nhA blds vk/kkj ij fdjk;snkjh csn[kyh dk eqdnek izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gSA iz'u ;g Fkk fd tqykbZ 2007 dk uksfVl izfroknh la[;k 1 ij rkehy gqvk ;k ughaA uksfVl dh izfr i=koyh ij ekStwn gS ftldh jlhn jftLVjh ds }kjk izfroknh la[;k 1 dks Hkstk x;k] og ewy jlhn i=koyh ij ekStwn gSA blesa vafdr irs ls izfroknh la[;k 1 bUdkj ugha djrk gS vkSj ;g ugha dgrk gS fd ;g v/kwjk irk gS ;k xyr irk gSA edku ekfyd us viuh lk{; ls fl) dj fn;k gS fd ;g uksfVl ykSVdj ugha vk;kA izfroknh vius mRrji= ;k lk{; esa ;g dgha ugha dgrk gS fd ;g tqykbZ 2007 okyk uksfVl mls ugha feykA cfYd xksy eVksy ckr dgrk gS fd /kkjk 106 Vh0ih0 ,DV dk uksfVl mls ugha feykA uksfVl tqykbZ 2007 ds ugha feyus ls Li"V bUdkj dgha ugha fd;k x;k gSA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa tc izfroknh Li"V :i ls uksfVl feyus ls bUdkj ugha djrk gS rks Mkfd;s dks izLrqr djus dh vko';drk gh ugha FkhA foi{kh fdjk;snkj ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us vius rdZ ds leFkZu esa ekuuh; bykgkckn mPp U;k;ky; dh fof/k O;oLFkk ,0vkbZ0vkj0 1981 bykgkckn 208 xq:opu flag cuke /keZ lekt lkslkbVh izLrqr dh gSA orZeku ekeys ds rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mDr lEekfur fof/k O;oLFkk ykxw ugha gksrh gSA lEiw.kZ lk{; ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa ls mDr fcUnq ij fo}ku voj U;k;ky; dk fu"d"kZ izolZ gSA bl rjg ls bl fcUnq ij Hkh voj U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; vkns’k vikLr gksus ;ksX; gSA vr% vfHkys[k ij ;g fl) gS fd uksfVl izfroknh ij rkehy gqvk gS vkSj fofu'p; fcUnq la[;k 2 ij fn;k x;k fo}ku voj U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; vikLr fd;k tkrk gSA^^ 12. He submits that the suit was filed on 14th May, 2007 whereas the findings recorded by the Revisional Court upon issue No. 2 show that notice terminating tenancy is of July, 2007 and there is no receipt with regard to the service of notice upon the petitioner. 13. In respect of second contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before the Court the notice itself which has been appended as Annexure-8 to the writ petition to the writ petition and submits that as the provisions of Section 111(h) of the Transfer of Property Act,1882 are not fulfilled, hence the notice is bad. 14. In support of his last contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered in Mahendra Kumar v. Smt. Pusha Wati (Dead) by LRs. and another, (2003 All CJ 1664) as well as the judgment rendered in R.S. Negi v. Vishnu Sahai Verma and another, 2006(6) ADJ 17 . He has then submitted that there is no question of default in payment of rent as perusal of the lease-deed shows that the petitioner had deposited Rs. 30,000/- as security money without interest before the landlord. 15. Per contra, Sri K.K. Arora, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that from the discussion of issue No. 2 quoted above in the judgment it is apparent that there were two notices, the one dated 19.7.2006 and the other dated 13.3.2007. He submits that from perusal of the findings on issue No. 2 it is evident that there is typographical error where the Court at one place has stated that the suit has been filed on the basis of the notice dated July, 2007. He also submits that it is apparent from reading of the whole of the judgment that the tenancy of the petitioner was terminated and the suit was filed on the basis of notice dated 13.7.2007. In so far as service of notice is concerned, he has submitted that the notice dated 12/13.7.2007 was sent to the petitioner terminating his lease/tenancy at his correct address. In so far as service of notice is concerned, he has submitted that the notice dated 12/13.7.2007 was sent to the petitioner terminating his lease/tenancy at his correct address. It is further submitted that Order 5, proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 19-A of C.P.C. provides that where the summons are properly addressed, prepaid and duly sent by registered post with acknowledgment due, notwithstanding the fact that the acknowledgment having been lost or mislaid, or for any other reason, has not been received by the Court within thirty days from the date of issue of the summons, the Court shall presume that notice is duly served. He has further relied upon Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and submits that this proviso is also similar to the proviso of U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904. Once the landlord has discharged his burden of proof that he had sent the notice by registered post, the burden of proof shifts upon the tenant to prove that he has not been served with summons. Hence, in view of the ratio laid down in paragraphs 9 and 11 of the judgment rendered in Basant Singh and another v. Roman Catholic Mission, AIR 2002 SC 3557 , notice would be deemed to be sufficient. 16. In so far as the second contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that a perusal of the notice dated 12/13.3.2007 in unequivocal terms terminates the tenancy of the petitioner. In so far as last contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it is stated that amount of Rs. 30,000/- as advance was in fact deposited towards security amount and not as advance towards rent, hence default in rent could not be adjusted from it and in any case, the question of eviction of the tenant from the property in dispute on the ground of arrears of rent was not in dispute as no application was filed by the landlord for eviction of the tenant from the suit property under the provisions of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Rather, it is a case of simple termination of lease by the said notice dated 12/13.3.2007 and eviction thereof, as such the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were not applicable. 17. Rather, it is a case of simple termination of lease by the said notice dated 12/13.3.2007 and eviction thereof, as such the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were not applicable. 17. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record it is apparent that the Court below has given a concurrent finding of fact that the petitioner has failed to prove that notice dated 13.3.2007 was not served upon him. It is also apparent from perusal of the findings recorded on issue No. 2 by the Revisional Court that a wrong date of July, 2007 instead of 13th March, 2007 has been mentioned in the judgment due to typographical error on the basis of which the suit has been filed by the landlord for eviction of the tenant from the premises in suit after terminating his lease/tenancy. A perusal of the notice also shows that the lease/tenancy of the petitioner tenant has been terminated with effect from 12/13.3.2007, hence the rulings cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Mahendra Kumar (supra) and Vishnu Sahai Verma (surpa) will not apply to the facts of the instant case as the Court has taken a view that in those cases there was no express determination of tenancy. It is not in issue that in a notice to quit, it is required by law; that there must be a clear explicit intimation to the tenant about the date after which if he continues in occupation of the premises, his status will no longer exist. In the instant case, the notice clearly provides that tenancy of the petitioner has been terminated with effect from 13.3.2007, therefore, it cannot be said that the notice is bad in law. The provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were not applicable to the building under the tenancy of the tenant which was constructed in the year 2000. It may be noted that the amount of Rs. 30,000/- alleged to be deposited by the tenant towards rent was in fact an amount of security and not advance towards rent, hence it cannot be adjusted in his rent. The Court below has therefore, rightly directed for refund of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 30,000/- to the petitioner and his eviction from the tenanted occupation of portion by him only for 11 months. 18. The Court below has therefore, rightly directed for refund of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 30,000/- to the petitioner and his eviction from the tenanted occupation of portion by him only for 11 months. 18. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. —————