JUDGMENT Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed with the prayer for quashing the order dated 7.5.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 13, Bareilly in S.C.C. Revision No. 50 of 2005 and judgment and order dated 1.10.2007 passed by Judge Small Causes Court, Bareilly in SCC Suit No. 17 of 2005. 3. The brief facts of the case are that landlord/respondent filed S.C.C. Suit No. 17 of 2005 against the petitioner for arrears of rent and eviction from the property in dispute. The suit was contested by filing written statement denying plaint allegations. The tenant came with the case in the written statement that he has not committed any default in payment of rent which according to him was paid regularly, but no receipts were issued by the landlord since January, 1998. It was also stated in the written statement that the rate of rent was Rs.120/- per month which was exclusive of water tax. The petitioner-tenant also claimed benefit of Section 20 (4) of Transfer of Property Act No. 13 of 1972 as well as fact that the notice of termination of tenancy was also not served upon him. 4. The trial court vide its judgment and order dated 1.10.2007 decreed the suit for arrears of rent and ejectment of the petitioner. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment dated 1.10.2007, the petitioner preferred S.C.C. Revision No. 50 of 2007 which was also dismissed vide judgment and order dated 7.5.2010. 6. The petitioner has now come in the present writ petition challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below in the judgments dated 1.10.2007 and 7.5.2010. 7. From perusal of record, it appears that the present landlord had purchased the residential accommodation in dispute vide sale deed dated 19.5.1997 and notice regarding termination of tenancy was sent to the landlord under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act read with section 20 of Act No. 13 of 1972 on the ground that the tenant has failed to deposit rent @ Rs. 120/- per month excluding the water and sewerage tax with effect from 1.1.1998 up to the date of notice. 8. Thereafter, suit no. 120/- per month excluding the water and sewerage tax with effect from 1.1.1998 up to the date of notice. 8. Thereafter, suit no. 17 of 2005 was filed in which the following issues were framed: 1- D;k okn i= ds dFkukuqlkj izfroknh iz'uxr lEifRr dk fdjk;k okfnuh dks vnk djus esa uknsgUn jgk gS ;fn gkW rks izHkko\ 2- D;k okfnuh izfroknh ls eqcfyx 4320@& :0 cdk;k fdjk;k izkIr djus dh vf/kdkfj.kh gS\ 3- D;k okfnuh }kjk izfroknh ds fof/k vuqlkj uksfVl nsdj fookfnr lEifRr ls izfroknh dh fdjk;snkjh lekIr dj nh x;h gS\ 4- D;k izfroknh fookfnr lEifRr ls csn[ky fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS\ 5- D;k okfnuh izfroknh ls uxj fuxe dk tydj eq0 432@& :0 izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 6- D;k okfnuh izfroknh ls 250@& :0 izfrekg dh nj ls fookfnr lEifRr dk e/;orhZ ykHk izkIr djus dh vf/kdkfj.kh gS\ 7- D;k okfnuh fdlh vuqrks"k dks izkIr djus dh vf/kdkfj.kh gS\ i{kdkjksa ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dh cgl lquh x;hA i=koyh o ml ij miyC/k lk{;ksa dk ifj'khyu fd;kA** 9. All the issues framed by the trial court were decided in favour of the landlord holding that the petitioner was in default of payment of rent from 1.1.1998 up to filing of suit and that the landlord was also entitled to arrears of rent. As regards notice is concerned the trial court held that the landlord had examined the postman regarding service of notice and had proved that the same has been served by refusal. Furthermore, nothing adverse could be elicited by the tenant from the evidence of postman which could be read in his favour. On the aforesaid finding, the court concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of Section 20 (4) of Act No. 13 of 1972 as the rent deposited by the petitioner on the first date of hearing fell short of arrears due upon him. 10. The findings of the trial court have been affirmed by the revisional court. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to establish that the petitioner had deposited full amount of arrears due on the first date of hearing and, therefore, the courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that he is not entitled to the benefit of Section 20 of the Act. Service of notice has also been proved by the landlord by examining the postman. Service of notice has also been proved by the landlord by examining the postman. Thus, it appears from the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the courts below that arrears of rent from 1.1.1998 were due upon the petitioner which has not been paid to the landlord. 12. In the circumstances, no case for interference is made out under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as there is no illegality or infirmity in the orders of the courts below. 13. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition Dismissed.