SHAMBHU DAYAL Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE RAE BARELI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying for the quashing of the judgment and decree passed by the Small Causes Court and the District Judge Rae Bareli dated 31st May, 1973 and 7th February 1974 respectively.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that the petitioner was a tenant of shop of which opposite party No. 3 Chandra Mohan was the landlord. The petitioner fell in arrears of rent and after serving notice under S. 106 of the T. P. Act opposite party No. 3 Chandra Mohan filed a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment against the petitioner. Two notices were sent by Registered Post on 15th November, 1972 and 22nd November, 1972 respectively but they were returned unserved. Ultimately, on 14th December, 1972 Chandra Mohan opposite party No. 3 took a written notice for delivery on the petitioner who refused the same. The notice was read out loudly in the presence of the witnesses. This notice was also signed by one Phool Chand Jain. Chandra Mohan thereafter filed a suit. The evidence led by the landlord Chandra Mohan was believed by the learned Judge Small Causes Court and he accordingly decreed the suit, finding the petitioner, in arrears of rent. Against this decree of ejectment and arrears of rent revision was filed by the petitioner before the District Judge but the same was dismissed on 7th February, l974. This is how the petitioner has come up before this Court by means of the present petition. The petition has been contested on behalf of opposite party No. 3 Chandra Mohan and a counter-affidavit has also been filed. An effort has been made to justify the orders passed by the courts below and it is asserted that the matter is concluded by finding of fact, as regards tender of the notice and it being refused by the petitioner, consequently the petition deserves to be dismissed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, however, on compassionate grounds pointed out that the petitioner was a Medical Practitioner and it will cause a hardship if immediately he has to vacate the premises. I find that there is force in this submission and I, therefore think it just and proper to grant four months' time to the petitioner to vacate the premises peacefully and handover possession to opposite party No. 3 Chandra Mohan, the landlord. With this observation I maintain the orders passed by the Courts below.