BHAGWAN DAS Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, DEHRADUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the tenant's writ petition arising out of proceedings under Section 21 of U.P.Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short the Act).

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 3 filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act on the allegation that the accommodation in dispute was purchased by her in the year 1980 by sale-deed dated 27th August, 1980. The petitioner-tenant was a tenant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 per month. The husband of the landlady was serving as Regional Director in Phippe and Muller Ltd., Calcutta. While he was living at Calcutta he fell seriously ill. The doctors advised him to shift to another place. As a result he shifted to Delhi where he took job with Christine Holden (India) Pvt. Ltd. The husband of respondent No. 3 suffered severe heart attack in the year 1986. He is still not feeling well. He is aged about 63 years and his age is adversely affecting his performance. Respondent No.3 has hired a flat 514, in Mandakini Enclave, New Delhi at a rent of Rs.1800 per month and is still living there. They have to pay a heavy rent at Delhi and want to shift to Dehradun. It was further stated that two notices were sent to the petitioner asking to vacate the accommodation. The first notice was given on 6th August, 1986 and another notice was sent on 11th September, 1986 under certificate of posting.

(3.) THE petitioner, aggrieved against the order of the Prescribed Authority, filed appeal before the Appellate Authority. Before the Appellate Authority the only point urged was that the notice, as provided under the proviso to Section 21 of the Act, was not served. The Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the first notice dated 6th August, 1986 was sent by registered post but it returned with the endorsement 'not served'. The second notice was sent under certificate of posting of 11th Sept., 1986. It was never returned to respondent No.3. The Appellate Authority also drew presumption of service of notice and also relied upon the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.3. In the result the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.