SANTOSH SINGH Vs. SUMAN SHUKLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the instant revision filed under Sec. 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act, 1887, the revision-petitioner has prayed for setting aside the judgment and an order dtd. 21/5/2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge/Special Judge, P.C. Act, Court No. 3, Lucknow in Miscellaneous Case No. 39-C of 2013, which was registered upon an application under Order XXI, Rules 97, 98, 99 read with 101 of Civil Procedure Code filed in Execution Case No. 01 of 2013, which execution case was filed for execution of the ejectment decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 13, Lucknow in SCC Suit No. 72 of 2010.

(2.) The aforesaid SCC Suit was filed by the revision-petitioner against the opposite party No. 2 - Santosh Shukla pleading that the petitioner was the owner and landlord of House 294/90 situated at Mohalla Bazar Khala, Lucknow. The defendant was his tenant in respect of one of the shops situated on the ground floor of the building at Rs.3,000.00 per month rent. The defendant did not pay rent to the plaintiff-revisionist after April, 2009 and he was in arrears of rent since 1/5/2009. On 11/6/2010, the plaintiff had sent a notice under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act which was served upon the defendant but the defendant did not pay rent of the premises to the plaintiff and he did not vacate the shop in his tenancy. As there was a typographical error in the notice dtd. 11/6/2010, inasmuch instead of a single door shop, a two door shop was wrongly been mentioned in the notice, the plaintiff sent another notice dtd. 12/7/2010. The defendant sent a reply dtd. 3/7/2010 denying the averments made in the plaintiff's notice.

(3.) The trial court has recorded in the judgment and order dtd. 12/4/2013 that the summons of the Suit was deemed to be sufficient on 3/2/2012 as the defendant had declined to receive the notice and on 30/3/2012 the Suit was ordered to proceed ex parte. The trial court has made a narration of the documentary evide nce filed by the plaintiff and his affidavit filed in evidence. The trial court reproduced the plaint averments and noted that in the reply dtd. 3/7/2010 sent in response to the notice under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the defendant had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the plaintiff. The trial court mentioned that the plaintiff had filed counterfoils of receipts for payment of rent dtd. 1/7/2008, 1/8/2008, 3/9/2008, 2/1/2009, 2/2/2009, 4/3/2009 and 1/4/2009 alongwith a list of documents filed with the plaint and held that the defendant has not filed any evidence to rebut the plaintiff's evidence and, therefore, the plaintiff's case was proved ex parte. Accordingly, the plaintiff's suit was decreed.