BAKRIDAN ANSARI Vs. RAJENDRA PRASAD AND 2 ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Siddhartha Varma, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri P.K. Jain assisted by Shri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party.

(2.) By means of the present revision, the eviction decree passed by the Judge Small Causes Court vide judgment and order dated 30.9.2015 is under challenge. Simultaneously, the revisionist also challenges the order dated 15.7.2008 passed by the Court below on the application filed under Order XV Rule 5 C.P.C, striking off his defence.

(3.) The main ground of challenge urged by learned counsel for the revisionist is that the alleged notice dated 25.7.2005, terminating the tenancy was not proved. The basis of this contention of the plaintiff is that regarding the service of notice the registry receipt which contained the address of shop under tenancy of the petitioner was produced. The notice ought to have been sent at the residential address of the noticee and as such no presumption could be drawn regarding service of notice on the basis of the registry receipt.