JUDGMENT : Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. 1. Heard Sri Sanjay Agarwal holding brief of Sri Diwakar Singh, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner and Sri Rajesh Tripathi, learned counsel for plaintiffs- landlords/respondents. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for the following relief: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 21.04.2008 passed by the trial court striking of the defence and the order dated 22.10.2009 passed by Judge Small Cause, Hathras in SCC Suit No. 21 of 2000 Thakur Krishna Chandra Ji Maharaj and Another v. Gaya Prasad and the order dated 28.10.2017 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Hathras in SCC Revision No. 20 of 2009, Gaya Prasad v. Thakur Krishna Chandra Ji Maharaj and Another, otherwise the defendant-petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. And/Or pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the present case." 3. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the plaintiff respondent No. 1 had let out the disputed accommodation to the defendant-petitioner under a rent agreement dated 22.07.1985. The monthly rent was Rs. 500/-. The defendant-petitioner was paying rent to the plaintiff-landlord/respondents till 04.08.1999. Thereafter, he defaulted in payment of rent. Consequently, notices were issued by the plaintiffs-landlords/respondents to the defendant-tenant/petitioner. The last notice dated 06.07.2000 was sent by registered post to the defendant-tenant/petitioner, which was served upon him by refusal. The aforesaid notice was replied by the defendant-petitioner, through his counsel Sri O.P. Dixit by reply dated 29.07.2000. Since the disputed accommodation was vacated and arrears of rent were paid by the defendant-tenant/petitioner and as such the plaintiffs-landlords/respondents filed SCC Suit No. 21 of 2000, Thakur Krishna Chandra Ji Maharaj Virajman Mandir Bag Beniram Maindu Road Hathras through Manager Sri Durga Prasad and Another v. Sri Gaya Prasad for eviction of the defendant-tenant/petitioner. The defendant-tenant/ petitioner had complied with the provisions of Order 15, Rule 5 C.P.C., therefore, his defence was struck off vide order dated 21.04.2008. In his written statement, the defendant-tenant/petitioner has admitted himself to be tenant and the plaintiff to be the landlord. Yet, he took the stand that the disputed accommodation is owned by him and as such he is liable to pay any rent. In his written statement, the defendant-tenant/petitioner has admitted himself to be tenant and the plaintiff to be the landlord. Yet, he took the stand that the disputed accommodation is owned by him and as such he is liable to pay any rent. The aforesaid SCC suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 22.10.2009 passed by the Judge Small Cause Court, Hathras. Aggrieved with this judgment, the defendant-tenant/petitioner filed SCC Revision No. 20 of 2009, Gaya Prasad v. Thakur Krishna Chandra Ji Maharaj and Another, which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 28.10.2017 passed by the Court No. 1, Hathras. Aggrieved with these two judgments as well as the order dated 21.04.2008 striking off the defence, the defendant-tenant/petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Submissions: Learned counsel for the defendant-tenant/petitioner submits as under: (i) Defendant-petitioner is the owner of Khasra Plot No. 235, which was mistakenly recorded in the revenue records as banjar and the mistake was rectified by the competent authority under Sections 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. The revision filed against the said order before the Divisional Commissioner was also dismissed. Therefore, the defendant-petitioner has become the owner of the khasra plot No. 235. Under the circumstances, both the courts below have committed manifest error of law to decree the suit. (ii) No notice was validly served upon the defendant-petitioner and as such the suit itself should have been proceeded with in view of the provisions of Section 21 of U.P. Act 13 of 1972. 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs-landlords/respondents supports the impugned judgments. Discussion and Findings:- 6. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and perused the record of the petition before me. 7. It is undisputed that the disputed accommodation was let out by the plaintiffs- landlords/respondents to the defendant-petitioner under a written rent agreement dated 22.07.1985 on a monthly rent of Rs. 500/-. The defendant-petitioner had occupied the disputed accommodation as a tenant and continued to pay the agreed rent. He paid rent from 22.07.1985 till 04.08.1999. These facts have been admitted by the defendant- petitioner in his written statement. However, he stopped payment of rent after 04.08.1999. Consequently, the plaintiff-landlords issued a notice to him for vacating the disputed accommodation and to pay arrears of rent. He paid rent from 22.07.1985 till 04.08.1999. These facts have been admitted by the defendant- petitioner in his written statement. However, he stopped payment of rent after 04.08.1999. Consequently, the plaintiff-landlords issued a notice to him for vacating the disputed accommodation and to pay arrears of rent. The notice dated 06.07.2000 was served upon the defendant-petitioner by refusal. He also sent a reply dated 29.07.2000 to the notice through his counsel Sri O.P. Dixit. Thus, service of notice upon the defendant- tenant/petitioner cannot be disputed. The findings recorded in this regard by the revisional court in paragraph-33 of the impugned judgment dated 28.10.2017 is a finding of fact based on consideration of relevant evidences on record including own document of the defendant-petitioner. Therefore, the second argument of learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner regarding non-service of notice has no substance and is hereby rejected. 8. The first submission by learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner that he is the owner of the khasra plot No. 235 and as such the SCC suit could have been decreed against him, is also without substance. The proceeding in a rent case is a summary proceeding. Undisputedly, the disputed accommodation was taken on rent by the defendant-petitioner from the plaintiffs-landlords/respondents under a written rent agreement dated 22.07.1985 at a monthly rent of Rs. 500/-. He continued to pay the rent for about five years. These facts also find support from the written statement. Thus, relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs-landlords/respondents and the defendant petitioner stood established. 9. Default in payment of rent is admitted and stands proved on record inasmuch as according to own case of the defendant-petitioner he has paid rent after 04.08.1999. It is also disputed that the rent has been deposited in compliance to the provisions of Order 15, Rule 5 C.P.C. Consequently, his defence was also struck off. The order striking off the defence, therefore, also does suffer from any manifest error of law. 10. The trial court as well the revisional court have dealt in detail each and every point raised by the defendant-tenant/petitioner and recorded findings thereon. The findings so recorded by the Revisional Court is based on consideration of relevant evidences on record. Thus, these findings being findings of fact based on consideration of relevant evidences on record, cannot be interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The findings so recorded by the Revisional Court is based on consideration of relevant evidences on record. Thus, these findings being findings of fact based on consideration of relevant evidences on record, cannot be interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The impugned judgments do suffer from any manifest error of law and as such require no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. In view of the aforesaid, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 12. After this order was dictated in open court, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner states on the basis of instructions that the defendant-petitioner is ready to submit an undertaking on oath to the effect that he shall vacate the disputed accommodation, and, handover its vacant and peaceful possession to Plaintiffs-Respondents on or before 31.07.2018 and shall deposit the entire decreetal amount and also a sum of Rs. 20,000/- within four weeks from today for use and occupation of the disputed accommodation for a period from today till 31.07.2018 and thereupon till 31.07.2018 no coercive action may be taken against the defendant-petitioner for dispossession from the disputed accommodation. 13. Learned counsel for plaintiffs-respondents has no serious objection to aforesaid request of the defendant-tenant/petitioner. 14. Considering the statement made by learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner as afore-noted, it is provided that in the event an undertaking on oath to the aforesaid effect is submitted by the defendant-petitioner before the concerned court below within three weeks from today and the decreetal amount and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- is also deposited within the same period for the purposes as aforesaid, then in that event, no coercive action shall be taken against the defendant-petitioner with respect to the disputed accommodation till 31.07.2018. On or before 31.07.2018, the defendant-petitioner shall vacate the disputed accommodation and shall handover its vacant and peaceful possession to the plaintiffs- respondents. In the event noncompliance of any of the conditions, the protection as aforesaid given to the defendant-petitioner shall automatically stand vacated. In the event, the disputed accommodation is not vacated, and, its vacant and peaceful possession is not handed over by the defendant-petitioner to the plaintiffs-respondents on or before 31.07.2018, then the plaintiffs respondents shall be entitled to initiate appropriate proceedings against the defendant-petitioner including the proceedings for contempt.