RAJES KUMAR,J. - (1.) BY means of present revision, the revisionist is challenging the order dated 28th January, 2011, passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Bijnore by which the suit filed by the plaintiff for ejectment and arrears of rent has been decreed. The revisionist was the defendant in the suit. The court below has decreed the suit on the ground that the land was purchased on 12.6.1991 on which the construction was made in the year 1992 and thereafter the first assessment was made in the year 1996-97, which is proved by the document Ga-24, therefore, the provision of the Act No.13 of 1972 is not applicable. The court below has also observed that the notice has been sent to the revisionist and the Postman has given the report that the revisionist has refused to take the notice and, therefore, there was proper service in accordance to Section 114 of the Evidence Act. A finding has also been recorded by the court below that there is no reason to disbelieve the report of the Postman. About the arrear of rent, it has been held that the rent for the period from January, 2007 to December, 2007 at the rate of Rs.7,00/= per month and from April, 2008 to October, 2009, total sum of Rs.21,700/= was due, which the tenant could not pay.
(2.) HEARD Sri K.M. Garg, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Anil Sharma alongwith Sri R.K. Shukla, appeared on behalf of the respondent. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that in view of Explanation (1) to Section 2(2) of the Act, the date of the first assessment is the relevant date to prove that the first assessment took place in 1996-97. A certificate has been filed, which has been relied upon. No assessment order has been referred in the order. He himself admitted that there is one document marked as Ga-13, which relates to the first Municipal assessment for the period 1996-97. He submitted that the service of notice has been deemed proper on the ground of refusal, which is not justified. He further submitted that so far as the arrear of rent is concerned, there is a statement of the plaintiff, referred in the order itself, in which it is admitted that a sum of Rs.2100/= has been paid as rent for the months of January, February and March, 2008 and, therefore, it cannot be said that the rent from January, 2007 to December, 2007 is outstanding. He submitted that it is true that the receipt for the payment of rent from December, 2006 onwards is not available inasmuch as no receipt has been issued by the land-lord and once it is accepted that the payment of the rent for the months of January, February and March, 2008 has been made, the presumption would be that the rent for the earlier period must have also been paid and, therefore, the finding of the court below that the rent is due from January, 2007 to December, 2007 is not justified. He, however, admitted that the rent for the period April, 2008 to October, 2009 has not been paid.
(3.) I have perused the impugned order and considered the rival submissions.;