LAWS(ALL)-1995-4-43

ABDUL ALIM Vs. D J JHANSI

Decided On April 17, 1995
ABDUL ALIM Appellant
V/S
D J JHANSI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M. Katju, J. In this case by order of this Court, dated 27-2-1991 petitioner had been directed to serve respondent No. 3 by Dasti notices. An affidavit of service has been filed by the petitioner and in Paragraph 2 it has been stated that the petitioner was directed to serve respondent No. 2 by dasti summon but it is stated that the respondent No. 2 has refused to accept the notice.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has stated that by an inadvertant mistake respondent No. 2 has been mentioned instead of respondent No. 3 in the affidavit.

(3.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the impugned orders dated 29-5-1999 and 20-1-1990 (Annexures 7 and 8 to the writ petition ). I have heard Shri K. K. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. None has appealed for respondent No. 3 nor has any counter-affidavit been filed. The petitioner is the landlord of the premises in dispute. He filed a suit against respondent No. 3 for recovery of arrears of rent, mesne profit and ejectment on the ground of default in payment of rent. True copy of the plaint is Annexure-1 to the petition. The allegation of the petitioner is that the water tax has not been paid by the respondent No. 3.