JAGDISH PRASAD Vs. IVTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE ETAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the landlord of an accommodation of which respondents 2 to 8 were the tenants. A suit was instituted by the petitioner against respondents 2 to 8 for their ejectment from the accommodation in question and for recovery of arrears of rent etc. on the ground inter alia that the said respondents had made material alteration in the accommodation let out to them and that their tenancy had been duly determined by serving a notice upon them under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. THE suit was contested by the tenant-respondents but was decreed by the Judge, Small Causes. It was held that the tenant-respondents had material alterations in the accommodation in question. In regard to the notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act the Judge, Small Causes found that the receipt of that notice was admitted to the tenant respondents and they had failed to substantiate their plea that the said notice was invalid.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the decree passed by the Judge, Small Causes the tenant-respondents preferred a revision before the District Judge under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. This revision was allowed by the IVth Additional District Judge, Etah on 5th December, 1974. A copy of this order has been filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition and its perusal indicates that the only point that was canvassed by the counsel for the tenant respondents before the Additional District Judge was that the petitioner had not proved that a valid notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act had been served on the tenant-respondents. This plea found favour with the Additional District Judge and it is on this basis that the revision was allowed. The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 5th December, 1974 passed by the IVth Additional District Judge, respondent no. 1.

(3.) IN Mani Kant Tiwari v. Babu Ram Dixit, AIR 1978 All. 144 it was held that where the tenant admitted receipt of notice of termination of tenancy but alleged that the notice was bad in law, the burden lay on the tenant to prove the invalidity of the notice and it was for him to have filed the original notice which he had received to substantiate his point that the notice was bad in law. IN Hiralal v. Badkulal, AIR 1953 SC 225 it was held that a party who is in possession of relevant documents should produce them before the Court and he cannot be heard to say relying on the abstract doctrine of onus of proof that it was no part of his duty to produce them unless he was called upon to do so.