MAHENDRA PAL SHARMA Vs. IXTH ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties on the review petition.

(2.) This writ petition filed by the tenant was dismissed by me through judgment and order dated 08.09.2005. This review petition has been filed by the tenant Petitioner seeking review of the said judgment. The suit for eviction was filed by landlords Respondents No. 3 to 8. Paragraphs 2, 3 & 4 of my judgment dated 08.09.2005 are quoted below:

(3.) The first argument of learned Counsel for the tenant Petitioner applicant is that in the first notice dated 28.09.1984, copy of which is Annexure-II to the writ petition the demand was for payment of arrears of rent (charha hua kiraya), hence it could not be treated to be a notice under Section 30 of the Act signifying the willingness to accept the rent in future. It has further been argued that through the said notice tenancy had been sought to be terminated and tenant was directed to vacate the house in dispute on the expiry of 30 days from the date of notice.