M.P. Singh, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is a tenant of House No. 50 situate in Mohalla Swami Para, Meerut. Opposite -parties Nos. 3 and 4 filed a suit for ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of default in payment of rent for more than four months.
(2.) THE petitioner denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. He further denied any amount of rent was due. The trial Court decreed the suit holding that the petitioner was a tenant at the rate of Rs. 100 per month. He has committed default in payment of the rent. Against the said decree the petitioner filed a revision which too was dismissed on 8 -2 -1990. The findings recorded by the Judge, Small Causes, have been upheld. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 8 -2 -1990 passed by the revisional Court. Heard Sri K.D. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner. He has raised the following points for: (i) Notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, was not served on petitioner. (ii) There was no relationship of tenant and landlord between the petitioner and the landlords. (iii) Since there was dispute of title, the suit for ejectment was not maintainable before the Judge, Small Causes. (iv) On the question of default in payment of rent, findings of the Courts below are erroneous because the plaintiff has failed to prove the rate of the rent. (v) According to him, the findings of the Courts below are based on misreading of the evidence.
(3.) SO far as the first point regarding service of the notice under Section 106, T.P. Act is concerned, the plaintiff has filed a copy of the notice which is Paper No. 26 -C. In addition to this, he also filed a receipt issued by the Post Office as a proof of sending the same under registered cover, and a certificate from the Post Master, dated 23 -9 -1981 proving that the said notice was served on the defendant (tenant). The petitioner had led no evidence to the contrary. Thus, the first submission is devoid of merit and is accordingly rejected. The notice was served on the petitioner.;