SURENDRA SINGH Vs. GURPREET SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been preferred by tenant -petitioner Surendra Singh (for short, 'the tenant'), assailing the order dated 30.03.2015 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by tenant and upholding the order dated 27.07.2012 passed by Rent Tribunal. Rent Tribunal by order dated 27.07.2012 allowed the eviction petition filed by landlord and directed eviction of the tenant. Landlord filed eviction petition under Sec. 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 on the premise that rented shop fully described in para 3 of the application is in the tenancy of tenant. Rented shop was taken on rent at the monthly rent of Rs. 400/ -. This shop was purchased by landlord on 14.11.2005 from Shri Pritam Lal, Smt. Jyoti Arora and Shri Gaurav Arora. Landlord sent notice on 13.12.2005 and 14.12.2005 to tenant informing about this fact. Tenant did not pay rent to landlord since November, 2005. Landlord sent a legal notice on 15.07.2006 through advocate to tenant with regard to arrears of rent. The said notice was received by tenant on 18.07.2006, yet rent was not deposited within 30 days of receipt of the notice.

(2.) Tenant contested the eviction petition and denied all averments. He filed reply thereto. It was alleged that the address of rented premise, which is in possession tenant, is "Dasmesh Golden Transport Company Limited, A -5 -A, Truck Stand, Transport Nagar, Jaipur". Alleged notice was not sent at the correct address in the name of Dasmesh Golden Transport Company Limited. Rented premise was taken on rent by tenant from Smt. Pramila Rani on monthly rent of Rs. 100/ - along -with terrace in the year 1981. Rented premise was purchased by one Teerath Singh from Smt. Pramila Rani. Tenant started to pay rent to Shri Teerath Singh. Thereafter, rented premise was purchased by Shri Pritam Lal. Rent was enhanced and fixed at Rs. 400/ - per month. Landlord did not give any information with regard to this transaction to tenant. Shri Pritam Lal and Smt. Jyoti Arora continued to collect rent of rented premise on yearly basis and therefore tenant could not know about sell of rented premise. Tenant denied having received any notice and therefore he has not committed any default in payment of rent. Rent Tribunal allowed the eviction petition filed by landlord. Aggrieved thereby, tenant filed appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, which has dismissed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, hence this writ petition.

(3.) Shri Bihari Lal Agarwal, learned counsel for tenant, has argued that the courts below have miserably failed to consider the fact that landlord had given the correct address of the shop (rented premise) of tenant in the eviction petition but alleged notice dated 15.07.2006 has not been sent at that address. It was neither received by tenant nor by his employee, therefore, both the courts below have erred in law in presuming service under Sec. 114 of the Evidence Act. The courts below failed to consider the significant aspect that the address given in the acknowledge due did not contain the name of Dasmesh Golden Transport, which was correctly given in the eviction petition. It cannot therefore be said that the notice was sent at the correct address. The presumption of service under Sec. 114 of the Evidence Act and Sec. 27 of the General Clauses Act could not be drawn against tenant. Besides, the acknowledgment due (Exhibit -9) has not been legally proved in evidence. It has merely been exhibited. Mere exhibition of document is not enough. There is neither any signature of tenant nor of any member of staff on A.D. (Exhibit -9). It appears that landlord manipulated the initials on the alleged A.D. (Exhibit -9) in connivance of the postman.