- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. The facts culled out from the record are that the property in dispute being shop No. 150-C, Shri Keshavji Gaudiya Math Dharmshala, Kanstela, Hospital Road, Mathura, was let out by the trustee to the petitioner Gauri Shankar Gupta in 1959 for business of Dry Cleaning of clothes. The property aforesaid originally belonged to Baba Gharib Das and his son Gursaran Das constructed Dharmshala over a portion of the land. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that Baba Gharib Das bequeathed all his properties, including Dharmshala with the right of management in favour of his son, Gursaran who died in 1944 and was succeeded by his sons Nand Kishore, Jagan Prasad alias Jai Ram and Madan Lal, who executed the Trust Deed in question on 13.12.1954. A notice of demand and quit was issued by Gaudiya Vedant Samiti on 23.8.1995, as managing body of the property in dispute namely Sri Keshavji Gaudiya Math, Dharmshala. The notice was replied by the petitioner on 19.9.1995, challenging its validity on the ground that it had not been issued on behalf of the landlord Trust, viz., Sri Keshavji Gaudiya Math, Dharmshala. It was also averred in the notice that no rent was due as the same has been regularly deposited.
(2.) The Trial Court vide its order dated 13.2.2007 decreed the suit and the Revisional Court viz. Addl. District Judge, Court No. 1, Mathura, vide its judgment and order dated 19.9.2008 affirmed the decree passed by the Trial Court.
(3.) Aggrieved by the order dated 19.9.2008, this writ petition has been preferred by the tenant challenging the validity and correctness of the order impugned on the ground that the notice is invalid having been issued by a person who is neither landlord, nor one of the trustees; that photostat copy of the original Trust Deed was admissible in evidence; that Courts below have failed to consider as to whether presumption under sections 90-A and 90-A of the Evidence Act can be extended to even execution and proof of the contents of the document. It is also challenged on the ground that Court below has erred in law as to whether testimony of Sri Purandar Brahmachari, who was a mere holder of power of attorney of the plaintiff, is evidence at all in the eyes of law; and as to whether the Courts below committed manifest error of law in placing reliance upon the judgment dated 3.10.2007 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 45694 of 2007 to which petitioner was not a party.;