PHAGGAN Vs. SALEEM UDDIN AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel appearing for petitioner.

(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the order dated 25.11.2009 and order dated 4.12.2004 (Annexures 13 and 6 to writ petition).

(3.) SRI Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel appearing for petitioner has submitted that service of notice was not sufficient and it was pleaded before the court but court has not recorded a specific finding that whether it was served or not. Only on the ground that there is an endorsement by the postman, it has been refused, in such circumstances, the Court has recorded a finding that service upon petitioner is sufficient. Further a specific issue was framed that whether there is a relationship of landlord and tenant. Petitioner denied that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant but Court has recorded a finding against the evidence on record. Sri Asthana has placed reliance upon Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported in 1983 Allahabad Rent Cases, 422 Zafri Ahmad and others Vs. Satish Kumar and others. Placing reliance upon the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for petitioner submits that in absence of lease deed, which required registration was necessary and admittedly lease deed /rent note was not registered, therefore, rent note alleged by landlord and respondent cannot be taken into consideration for the purposes of relationship of landlord and tenant and in view of Division Bench judgment of this Court, as the registration was required, therefore, that is no admissible in evidence and placing reliance upon the aforesaid rent note, the Judge, Small Causes Court cannot decreed the suit. Petitioner has also placed reliance upon two judgments of this Court reported in AIR 1990 (Supreme Court) 1214 and AIR 1986 (1) 475. Placing reliance upon aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for petitioner submits that in case, petitioner denied the factum of refusal of the notice sent by the landlord the postman should have been examined. No examination of the postman was made, therefore, the finding to this effect that service of notice was sufficient is not correct.