YASEEN Vs. A D J BULANDSHAHR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Rajesh Tandon appearing for the petitioner and Km. Anu Jaiswal appearing for the respondent no. 2 Km. Anu jaiswal gives a statement that she does not intend to file any counter affidavit and this writ petition may be heard and disposed of finally. With the consent of parties' counsel and in the circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of finally.

(2.) Respondents no. 3 and 4 filed suit for rent and ejectment against the petitioner on the ground of default of payment of rent alleging therein that the defendant-petitioner was in arrears of rent from 1.10.87 which remain unpaid despite service of notice of demand on 6.9.1993. The petitioner contested the suit alleging that no amount of rent was due as he had paid entire rent to the pLalntiffs but no receipt was issued therefor. The trial court did not accept this assertion of the tenant about the payment of rent to the landlords and recorded a finding that the defendaant-petitioner was a defaulter, The trial court however, decreed suit for arrears of rent only and dismissed the same for ejectment on the ground that notice of demand and termination was not proved to have been duly served upon the petitioner. Against the judgment of the trial court, the landlords preferred revision which has been allowed by the impugned order and the pLalntiffs suit has been decreed in toto.

(3.) Learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner argued before me that the revision court has acted beyond its powers in making interference in the finding of fact recorded by the trial court regarding service of notice, which was based upon appraisal of evidence. He argued that it was found by the trial court that it was not fully established that the notice of demand and termination was tendered to the tenant and the same was refused by him. This finding of the trial court has been reversed by the revision court on the ground that the evidence was not properly assessed and appreciated by the trial court.