SHAKEEL AHMAD Vs. PREM SAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHIV Charan Sharma, J. The present writ petition has been instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the judgment and decree date 29th April, 2008 passed by the District Judge, Faizabad in S. C. C. Revision No. 28/2008, Shakeel Ahmad Vs Prem Sagar as well as the judgment and decree dated 26th October, 2006 passed by Judge, Small Causes Court, Faizabad in S. C. C. Suit No. 11/2003, Prem Sagar Vs Shakeel Ahmad. By the impugned judgments and decrees, both the courts below decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The opposite party instituted a suit for recovery of /arrears of rent and expenses for use and occupation and also for eviction of the tenant-petitioner from the property in dispute and the revisional court in revision, dismissed the revision and affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court.

(2.) THE brief narration of the facts of the case shows that the plaintiff-opposite party instituted a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and expenses for use and occupation of Rs. 7200/- and also for eviction of the tenant from the property in dispute. It has been alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff is the owner- landlord of the building, House No. 9/6/69, Sagar Market, Rikabganj Ward, Rikabganj, Faizabad and the defendant is the tenant of one of the shops numbered as 4 situated in this building as fully described in the plaint at the monthly rent of Rs. 200/- That the defendant was defaulter in payment of rent and he was not in the habit of paying the rent month to month. That the rent was due towards the defendant for the month of May, 2000 upto the month of April, 2003. That a notice of demand and termination of tenancy was served by registered post through an advocate on 19th May, 2003. One copy of the notice was also sent under the certificate of posting on 21st May, 2003. As the notices sent by the registered post as well as under the certificate of posting were not received unserved, hence, a presumption was drawn of sufficient service and inspite of sufficient service, the defendant neither paid the arrears of rent nor vacated the property in dispute. Hence, the present suit was instituted.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner namely Sri Amit Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri S. K. Mehrotra, learned Senior Advocate for the opposite parties and perused the entire material on record.