- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the judgment of the Revisional Court dated 25-5-1984 allow ing the revision and decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent.
(2.) THE petitioner and his mother, Smt. Ram Rati, were owners of the proper ty in dispute. THEy executed a sale deed in respect of the said property which was ultimately purchased by the plaintiff-respondent No. 2 by a registered sale deed. THE petitioner is alleged to have executed the rent note on 4-1-1969 in favour of respondent No. 2 who had purchased the property. THE petitioner continued to oc cupy the disputed premises. THE plaintiff-respondent gave a notice to him on 12-4-1973 demanding arrears of rent and ter minating his tenancy. THE petitioner did not comply with the notice. He filed S. C. C. Suit No. 488 of 1974 for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages against the petitioner. THE petitioner took a defence that he had in fact taken loan from the plaintiff and the amount of loan was paid to him. He denied that there was any relationship of landlord and tenant or he received a valid notice. THE trial Court dismissed the suit on 9-10-1980 on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove the rent note in accordance with law and in absence of any other cogent documentary evidence, the relationship of landlord and tenant was not established. Respondent No. 2 filed revision against the said order. Respondent No. 1 has allowed the revision by the impugned order holding that the petitioner was a tenant of the disputed premises and as he failed to comply with the notice served upon him, he was liable for eviction. This order has been chal lenged in the present writ petition. I have heard Sri B. N. Agrawal learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri R. P. Tewari learned Counsel for the respondent. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Revisional Court acted illegally in setting aside the findings recorded by the trial Court and in any case, should have remanded the matter to the trial Court to decide the matter afresh.
(3.) ADMITTEDLY the petitioner was originally owner of the property. A registered sale deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. The petitioner never filed any suit for cancellation of the said sale deed. In the defence, he had taken the plea that in fact he had taken the amount as loan but the sale deed was got executed. The Judge, Small Causes Court had no jurisdiction to decide the validity of the sale deed, particularly when the petitioner himself had not filed any suit for cancellation of the sale deed. The Revisional Court found that the petitioner himself had executed the rent note which was marked as Ext. 1 and that clearly estab lish that the petitioner was tenant of the disputed premises. The trial Court did not rely upon the rent note on the ground that it was not duly proved by the attesting witnesses. It failed to take into considera tion that the petitioner had admitted sig nature on the rent note. The admission of the petitioner of execution of the rent note itself establishes his relationship of landlord and tenant. The Revisional Court in these circumstances was justified in set ting aside the findings of the trial Court in regard to the relationship of landlord and tenant. The next submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the notice was not proved. The plaintiff had filed a copy of the notice which was sent by registered post. The trial Court did not find that it was not sent through postal service. He observed in his judgment that the plaintiff in his statement failed to state that the petitioner had received the notice. The notice was sent by the registered post. There is a presumption also under law that the notice which is sent by registered post at a correct address shall be deemed to have been served. The Revisional Court in these circumstances was justified in com ing to the conclusion that the petitioner was served with notice and he did not comply with the notice after its service.;