RAM KISHAN Vs. KAILASH NARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of the suit filed in 1959 for eviction of the defendant -appellant from the suit premises on the basis of the plea contemplated under section 4 (a) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1955, for short, 1955 Act. The suit was dismissed by the trial court upon holding that the plea was not proved and the Court of appeal below having held to in the contrary the tenant -defendant is in this Court.

(2.) APPELLANT 's counsel, Shri Lahoti, bas fairly conceded that in virtue of the provisions of section 51 (2) of the new enactment of 1961, the new Act, shall have no operation in this case and the lis must be determined with reference to the provisions of section 4 (a) of the 1955 Act, which I quote: -

(3.) THE short question that bas arisen for decision in this appeal is -whether the Court of appeal below had jurisdictional competence to pass the impugned decree against the tenant defendant on reversing the findings of the, trial Court which has taken the view on evidence that the landlord bad failed to prove service on the tenant of the written notice of demand contemplated under section 4 (a). I have been taken through the pleadings as also some part of the relevant and material evidence. In para 6 of the plaint it is stated that the requisite notice of demand was mailed to the tenant by registered post though the contents of that notice are not stated. In para 5 it is stated that on 26 -12 -1958 the notice was issued asking the plaintiff to make payment of arrears of rent for the period of preceeding six months, upto 3 -12 -1958. But in para 6 it is further stated until 31 -12 -1958 the postal acknowledgement receipt was not received back for the notice sent by registered post. Therefore on 1 -1 -1959, a copy of the said notice was offered to the tenant at his shop in the presence of witnesses but he refused to accept the same. It is further stated in para 6 that the notice sent by registered post was received back unserved on 3 -1 -1959 because the defendant refused to accept the same. In the written statement the averments made in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the plaint are denied. It is averred on the other hand that no rent was due payable and the tenant -defendant was not in arrears and further that no notice in that regard was ever served on the defendant. There is specific denial also of the fact that on 1 -1 -1959 the copy of the notice was offered to the defendant and on his refusal to accept the same in presence of witnesses it was pasted on the suit premises. Indeed, the plaint averment in that regard was specifically denied and it was also denied that any notice sent to the defendant by registered post and that it was refused by him. In fine service of the notice "as seriously challenged.