Hon’ble Prakash Krishna, J.—This is tenant’s writ petition for quashing the decree of eviction passed against him in respect of a shop which belongs to the Madho Prasad Charitable Trust, respondent No. 3 herein.

2. J.S.C.C Suit No. 18 of 1995 was instituted by Madho Prasad Charitable Trust through Shri Kailash Chandra Mittal, Head Trustee and Kailash Chandra Mittal, respondents No. 3 and 4 herein, against the present petitioner, on the pleas inter alia that plaintiff Madho Prasad Charitable Trust being a public charitable and religious trust, has got temples, Dharamsala situate at Station Road, Chandpur District Bijnor. The said trust is running a public library in a small room and the disputed shop is needed to widen the entrance gate of Mandir which is presently 4-1/2 ft. towards north of the Mandir. It claimed that recently number of Deities of Bhagwan Ram Chandra Ji’, ‘Lakshman Ji’. ‘Sitaji’, ‘Radhaji’. ‘Krishan Ji’, ‘Hanuman Ji’, and Ganesh Ji’, which were brought from Jaipur, have been installed and the plaintiff proposes to construct two other temples of “Shri Santoshi Mata” and “Mata Durgaji”. The exemption from the operation of the provision of U.P Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter called as Act No. 13 of 1972) was claimed on the basis of Section 2(bb) on the ground that the building in question is a public charitable and religious institution. It was further pleaded that the tenancy of the petitioner has been terminated by a registered notice dated 6.3.1995 which has been served by refusal. The said notice was given on his correct address but the tenant refused to vacate the disputed accommodation.

3. The defence set up was that the building in question is covered by the provisions of U.P Act No. 13 of 1972 as the plaintiff is not a public charitable and religious trust, no notice as required under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was served on him. He did not receive any notice as stated in paragraph-9 of the plaint nor he ever refused to receive any such notice and the allegation that he refused to receive the notice tendered by the Post Man is wrong and incorrect.

4. It may also be placed on record that during the pendency of the suit plaint was got amended (amendment allowed by the order of 9.5.1996), a decree for mesne profit @ Rs. 1,500/- per month from the date of institution of the suit up to the date of taking possession, was claimed, it is not in dispute that the defendant petitioner was the tenant on the monthly rent of Rs. 150/-.

5. The parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 22.1.2002. The said decree has been confirmed in S.C.C. Revision No. 7 of 2002 by the Court below. These two judgments and decrees are under challenge in the present writ petition.

6. Shri Sankatha Rai, learned Counsel for the petitioner raised the following three points in his arguments :

(1) The notice dated 6.3.1995, Annexure-13 to the writ petition, was never served on the petitioner.

(2) The landlord of the shop is not a Public Charitable Religious Trust as alleged by the plaintiff in paragraph-1 of the plaint. The document which was the basis of the plaint itself, has not been filed and as such any amount of oral evidence cannot be looked into.

(3) The Court below has erred in awarding mesne profit @ Rs. 1500/- per month from the date of the institution of the suit in the absence of any material on record in support thereof.

Point No. 1

7. The registered notice dated 6.3.1995 was indisputably sent by the plaintiffs on the correct address of the petitioner i.e. at his residential address. When the Post Man reached at the resident of the petitioner to serve the notice he was informed that the petitioner is at his shop and therefore the notice be served there. The Post Man thereafter returned the notice to the post office for delivery to the another post man in whose area the shop wh