JUDGMENT Dilip Gupta, J.
1. The defendant of SCC Suit No. 81 of 2002 has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to assail the order dated 26th August, 2006 passed by the Judge, Small Cause Courts by which the Suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent was decreed. The petitioners have also sought the quashing of the judgment and order dated 26th February, 2008 by which the Revision filed by the defendant against the aforesaid order was dismissed.
2. The aforesaid SCC Suit No. 81 of 2002 was filed for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent on the assertion that the the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') does not apply as the building in dispute belongs to the waqf and is exempted from the operation of the Act under the provisions of Section 2(bbb) of the Act and even though the tenancy had been determined by a valid notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act the defendant failed to comply with the terms of the notice. The Suit was decreed holding that the provisions of the Act did not apply and the tenancy had been determined by a valid notice. The Revision filed by the defendant was also dismissed.
3. I have heard Sri R.K. Awasthi learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jai Prakash Prasad learned Counsel appearing for the respondent and have perused the materials available on record.
4. The first contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the notice sent under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was not a valid notice and, therefore, the Suit based on that notice was liable to be dismissed and in support of his contention learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Abdul Jalil v. Haji Abdul Jalil AIR 1974 Alld. 402.
5. A perusal of the notice sent under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act indicates that the tenancy of the defendant-petitioner was terminated by the notice and he was required to vacate the premises after thirty days and deliver its possession failing which the Suit for ejectment was liable to be filed.
6. The notice in issue in the aforesaid Division Bench judgment of this Court in Abdul Jalil (supra) is worded almost identically as is clear from the averments made in paragraph 16 of the judgment which is as follows:
The notice which is the subject-matter of the present appeal falls in this category. It contained the following words as translated in English:
Your tenancy is terminated by this notice. So after receipt of this notice you can remain in possession for thirty days upto the midnight and then deliver possession to the notice-giver and on your failure to do so a suit for ejectment shall be filed against you.
7. Interpreting this notice, the Court held that it was a valid notice and the relevant portion of the judgment is quoted below:
...On the other hand, the demand for possession combined in that notice requiring the lessee to vacate the premises on the expiry of thirty days clearly indicated that the tenancy was meant to be terminated on the expiry of that period which would also follow by operation of law contained in Section 111(h). In our opinion also a notice of this type in which the present notice also falls, will be a valid notice of termination of the lease under Section 106 read with Section 111(h)....
Since the notice in the present case falling as it does in category E was a valid notice, the courts below rightly decreed the suit for ejectment on its basis and this appeal is without any merits in it.
8. This decision, therefore, concludes the controversy against the petitioner and it has to be held that the notice determining the tenancy was a valid notice.
9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner then urged that both the Courts below committed an illegality in holding that the building was exempted from the operation of the Act.
10. In the present case, both the Courts below have held that the building belonged to the waqf and, therefore, was exempted from the operation of the Act under Section 2(bbb) of the Act. These are findings of fact based on appraisal of evidence and learned Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to place anything which may indicate that the said finding is perverse.
11. In view of the aforesaid, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
12. In the end learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that three months may be given to the petitioner to handover peaceful possession of the premises to the landlord.
13. Learned Counsel appearing for the landlord submitted that the Court may grant the aforesaid time provided the petitioner gives the usual undertaking within three weeks from today before the Court below.
14. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. The petitioner shall not be ejected from the premises in dispute for a period of three months from today provided the petitioner gives the following undertaking before the Court below within three weeks from today.
1. That the petitioner shall deposit the amount awarded in case it has not already been deposited within a period of one month from today before the Judge Small Cause Courts.
2. That the petitioner shall pay damages at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month up to the date he handover the possession of the premises to the landlord.
3. That the petitioner shall not induct any other person in the premises.
4. That the petitioner shall handover peaceful possession of the premises to the landlord on or before the expiry of three months.
15. It is made clear that in the event the petitioner fails to give the undertaking within the aforesaid period or fails to comply with any of the terms of the undertaking, then in that case, it will be open to the landlord to get the decree executed.