JUDGMENT :

(Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Tripathi B.G. Bhai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The tenant petitioner has sought to invoke supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution questioning the judgment and order passed by the revisional court in SCC Revision under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order for there being no justification to reverse the judgment and order of the Trial Judge in SCC Suit No. 32 of 2005, wherein land lord respondent has been non suited on the ground that the service of notice was not effected upon the tenant so as to determine the tenancy, inasmuch as, the petitioner was not found to be in default of payment of rent and if he continued to deposit the rent in time, may be under Section 30 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting and Eviction) Act, 1972, he would be entitled to protection under Section 20(4) of the said Act. So the bone of the contention between the parties qua maintainability of the suit and consequential entitlement of land to get the suit for ejectment decreed and on sufficiency of service of notice.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that notice to determine tenancy was required to be personally served upon the tenant. He submitted that no body knew who was receipient woman, named Sapna. A mere acknowledgement with signature of the alleged receipient of notice would not suffice the need of service of notice. He submitted that once the acknowledgment was received by the land lord, he ought to have enquired as to who was woman named Sapna and whether she was member of the family or a resident of the place of address. Sapna, it was argued, having not been identified, the service would not be taken to be due service of notice personally upon the tenant petitioner.

5. Yet another argument advanced is that once the landlord refused rent, tenant was left with no other option but to deposit rent under Section 30 of Act No. 13 of 1972 and alleged notice having not been served upon him, he was not liable to offer any rent to the landlord respondent and considering the continued deposit even at the time of filing suit and even thereafter, he cannot be held to have default in payment of rent.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments in support of his arguments firstly in the case of Balloo Ram Bookseller v. Chhedi Lal, 1968 ALJ to assail that there has to be personal service of notice upon tenant and service upon a third party would do needful and then in the case of Shri Ram Mittal v. XIth Additional District Judge, Meerut and Others, wherein it was held that if the tenant was in four months default of water tax, does not exceed period of four months under Section 7 of the Act No. 13 of 1972 then petitioner would be entitled to payment under Section 20(4) of the Act No. 13 of 1972, inasmuch as , the deposit made under Section 30 of the Act No. 13 of 1972 will be taken into consideration while calculating the defendant’s liability towards rent.

7. Per contra, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent landlord that the landlord had sent notice by registered post that was duly served upon a lady, named, Sapna at the address of the tenanted premises. The registry receipt in original, the acknowledgement received back in original and also the copy of the notice was filed before the Trial Court. It was argued before the Trial Court, therefore, that burden to establish service of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to determine the tenancy, stood discharged and so onus shifted upon the tenant to prove that notice was not served upon to the member of the family, which he failed to discharge.

8. The further contention advanced by learned counsel for the respondent in defence on the point of default of payment of rent, is that after service of notice upon