MAHENDRA KAUR Vs. VITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE PILIBHIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The landlady, petitioner herein, instituted SCC Suit No. 43 of 1984 against the respondent No. 2, the tenant, for his ejectment, recovery of Rs. 1,460 towards the arrears of rent Rs. 432 towards the damages and Rs. 241.14 towards the house tax and water tax etc. on the ground that the defendant tenant has failed to pay the arrears of rent in pursuance of the notices dated 8.9.1983 served on 10.9.1983 and of 27th of January, 1984. The said suit was contested denying the allegations of default and also by denying the other plaint allegations. It is not necessary to refer them in detail in view of the controversy presently involved in the petition.

(2.) THE only controversy involved in the present writ petition is whether the notice dated 8.9.1983 was served on the petitioner and if so the deposit made by the defendant who is respondent herein under Section 30 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is valid. In other words, whether the defendant tenant is a defaulter within the meaning of Section 20 (2) (a) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 [U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972].

(3.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the finding recorded by the revisional court that notice dated 8.9.1983 was not served, is legally unsustainable as the said notice was sent by registered post and postal receipt is already on the record. Even if the acknowledgment receipt due has not been filed, there is a presumption of valid service under law, in respect of registered articles. He further submits that there is no requirement of giving any notice under Section 30 of the Act. Elaborating the argument, he submits that no information or notice was served by the Munsif Court informing the landlady that the rent is being deposited under Section 30 of the Act by the tenant. In response, the learned counsel for the tenant supports the impugned judgment.