HARBANS SINGH Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE SHAHJAHANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the time of arguments no one appeared on behalf of respondents, hence only the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner were heard.

(2.) THIS is tenant's writ petition arising out of a suit for eviction filed by original landlord respondent No. 2 Ram Murti Srivastava since deceased and survived by legal representatives in the form of S. C. C. Suit No. 52 of 1982. Property in dispute is a shop rent of which is Rs. 25/- per month. The suit for eviction was filed on the ground of default alleging that since November 1978 rent had not been paid. Tenant-petitioner pleaded that no notice was received by him; that the plaintiff alone was not the owner-landlord, hence the suit was not maintainable and that rent was sent by money order, which was refused by the landlord. Before the Trial Court it was argued by the landlord that defence of the tenant should be struck off. On 14. 12. 1983 Trial Court passed an order that within three days entire due rent should be paid otherwise his defence would be deemed to have been struck off. Against the said order revision was filed and the Revisional Court granted further time to make the deposit and within that time deposit was made, hence the Trial Court did not strike off the defence.

(3.) REGARDING service of notice upon the tenant, Trial Court held that plaintiff in his oral statement admitted 'that he could not say as to whether Harbir the tenant got the notice or not. The Trial Court further held that in view of this statement it was essential for the landlord to prove service of noice by producing evidence. Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that notice was not proved to have been served; plaintiff alone was not the owner landlord and tenant had sent the rent through money order. Against the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court original landlord-respondent No. 2 filed S. C. C. Revision No. 72 of 1985. Revision was allowed by the District Judge, Shahjahanpur through judgment and order dated 6. 2. 1986. The revisional Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and decreed the suit with costs. The tenant has challenged the said judgment and order passed by the Revisional Court through this writ petition.