JAMUNA PRASAD Vs. SMT. NAEEMA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner and perused the record.

(2.) Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 22.7.2017 passed by the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and the order dated 23.1.2016 passed by the Additional Judge II SCC.

(3.) Suit was filed by the landlady-respondent for rent and eviction on the ground that the rent for the period 1.4.2000 to 31.5.2008 was not paid by the tenant (petitioner herein). A notice dated 3.6.2008 was given to the tenant but still the rent was not paid and therefore, he was liable for eviction. A defence was taken by the tenant that the rent was duly paid by the tenant-petitioner and that he is tenant in the house in question since 1955 and he is paying rent without any default. The suit was decided against the tenant-petitioner holding that the receipts that have been submitted by the tenant are photostat copies and therefore, no benefit of the receipt of payment of rent can be given as they do not cover the rent from 5.4.2006 to 4.7.2008. It was further held that no document or tender was produced to prove that the rent was deposited on the first date of hearing and whatever tenders that have been submitted are of subsequent dates. As such, default was found to be correct. On service of notice, it was found that the DW-1 Rajesh (son of the original tenant) had accepted in cross-examination that on receipt of notice the signatures are of his father Jamuna Prasad and as such, service of notice is found to be duly proved. DW-1 Rajesh in his cross-examination has also admitted that he is not aware as to whether rent was paid by his father or not after receipt of notice. The suit was decreed and the revision filed by the tenant-petitioner was dismissed affirming the judgment and order of the trial Court.