Hon’ble Rajes Kumar, J.—This writ petition is by the landlord, challenging the order of the Judge, Small Causes Court, Bulandshahar dated 8.12.2004 passed in Small Cause Case No. 25 of 1999 by which he has rejected the suit of the petitioner and the order of the Additional District Judge, Bulandshahar dated 23.10.2003 by which the revision filed by the landlord has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner had let out two shops, situated at Mohalla Brahmnan Khurja on the rent of Rs. 750/- per month to late Kashi Ram. When late Kashi Ram could not pay the rent after 1.8.1996, despite the repeated requests, the petitioner given notice dated 8.3.1997 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for arrear of rent, damages and eviction from the premises which has been served upon late Kashi Ram on 14.3.1997. Late Kashi Ram given the reply of the notice. Neither rent has been paid nor the premises has been vacated. Kashi Ram died on 25.5.1997 and after the death of Kashi Ram his heirs who are defendant-respondents in the present writ petition came in possession of the shops in dispute.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a suit against the heirs of late Kashi Ram for eviction on 12.3.1999 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Khurja, which has been registered as Small Cause Case No. 21 of 1997. The defendant-respondents filed the written statement. However, it appears that their defence has been subsequently struck off. Therefore, the case has been contested by the defendants on the pleading made in the plaint and written statement itself.

The defendant-respondents contended that the suit has been filed after the death of Kashi Ram without giving any notice to them, almost after two years from the date of service of notice on late Kashi Ram. After the service of notice, under Section 106 of the Act on late Kashi Ram, the tenancy stood terminated. They have not paid any rent and they continued to occupy the premises in dispute as an unauthorized occupants and ceased to be the tenants and, therefore, the suit was not cognizable by the Judge, Small Causes Court.

4. The petitioner contended that after the death of late Kashi Ram and after the termination of tenancy, the defendants being the legal heirs continued to remain in possession as statutory tenants as they stepped on the shoe of late Kashi Ram and once the notice under Section 106 of the Act has been given to late Kashi Ram, the tenant, which was duly served on him, the tenancy stood terminated, therefore, no further notice was required to be given to the heirs of late Kashi Ram, the defendants in the suit. It was contended that the defendants continued as the statutory tenants and, therefore, the relationship of the landlord and the tenants continued, thus, the suit was cognizable by the Judge, Small Causes Court.

5. The Judge, Small Causes Court has rejected the suit on the ground that after the service of notice on late Kashi Ram under Section 106 of the Act, the tenancy stood terminated. Therefore, the status of the heirs of late Kashi Ram was as the trespasser-occupants and they ceased to be the tenants, thus, therefore, the suit was not cognizable by the Judge, Small Causes Court. It has been held that after the termination of the tenancy, the legal right of late Kashi Ram did not transfer on the legal heirs and their status was as the trespassers.

6. Being aggrieved by the order of the Judge, Small Causes Court, the petitioner filed the revision which has been dismissed by the impugned order on the same ground.

7. Heard Sri Vinod Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Atiq Ahmad Khan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the death of late Kashi Ram his heirs stepped on the shoes of their father and their status was as that of late Kashi Ram. After the termination of