ORDER
Tarun Agarwala, J.
1. The petitioner filed a suit for eviction of respondent No. 4 from the premises in question alleging that the respondent No. 4 was in arrears of rent. A composite notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Properly Act and under Section 80. C.P.C. was served upon the respondent, thereby terminating the tenancy. Inspite of terminating the tenancy, the respondent No. 4 did not vacate the premises nor paid the arrears of rent. Hence, a suit was filed for eviction of the respondent No. 4 before the Judge Small Cause Court.
2. During the pendency of the suit, the respondent did not deposit the monthly rent and accordingly, the defence of the respondent No. 4 was struck off. The Judge Small Cause Court, after determining the points in issue, decreed the suit for ejectment as well as for damages. The trial court held that the premises in question was a public building and that U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable. The trial court further held that the composite notice issued by the petitioner was a valid notice and the tenancy of the respondent was validly terminated. The trial court also gave a finding that the respondent No. 4 was in arrears of rent and that he had committed a default.
3. Aggrieved by the decision of the Judge Small Cause Court, the respondent filed a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The revisional court, by judgment dated 11.5.1984, affirmed the finding with regard to the default committed by the respondent in the payment of rent, but allowed the revision on the ground that the composite notice given by the petitioner was not a valid notice. The revisional court held that a composite notice could not be given and that separate notices under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and under Section 80, C. P.C. was required to be given. Since separate notices were not given by the petitioner, the tenancy was not determined and therefore, no relief could be granted to the petitioner and, accordingly, allowed the revision of the tenant.
4. Aggrieved by the order of the revisional court, the petitioner has now filed the present writ petition.
5. Heard Sri B. D. Mandhyan, the learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Om Prakash for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.
6. In my view, the impugned revisional order is liable to be set aside. A composite notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and under Section 80, C.P.C. can be given. In State of U. P. v. N.C. Mukerji, 1983 (1) ARC 836, it has been held by this Court that a composite notice under Section 80, C.P.C. and under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, can be given and that separate notices are not required to be given. Similar views have been given in State of U. P. and Ors. v. Mst. Mohan Devi, 1977 ALJ 365 ; Rangnath v. State of U. P. and Ors., 1984 (1) ARC 642 and in 1983 AWC 458. Further, I find from a perusal of Annexure-3 to the writ petition, which is a copy of the notice, it is clear that the petitioner had validly issued a composite notice and had validly terminated the tenancy of the respondent from the premises in question. The notice is in consonance with the requirements of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 80, C.P.C. The decision of this Court in Abdul Jalil v. Hazi Abdul Jalil, AIR 1974 All 402, is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
7. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 11.5.1984 passed by the VIIth Additional District Judge, Agra is hereby quashed. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.