Sudhir Chandra Verma, J. - (1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the tenant has challenged the order dated 29 -6 -1989 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court decreeing the landlord's suit for arrears of rent and ejectment as also the order dated 4 -4 -1991 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Dehradun dismissing the revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act against the aforesaid order dated 29 -6 -1989. The plaintiff, herein respondent No. 3, filed suit for arrears of rent and ejectment on the ground that the petitioner was a month to month tenant of a portion of premises No. 94, Race Course, Dehradun on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/ -. The rent from 1 -1 -1986 was due and a notice was served on 30 -5 -1987 which the tenant refused to accept. The notice was also served by affixation in presence of two witnesses. The tenant having failed to comply with the notice became defaulter and liable for ejectment.
(2.) THE tenant filed a written statement. It has been stated that Jameet Singh, husband of the petitioner Smt. Jaswant Kaur, was initially the tenant of the disputed accommodation and after his death, the petitioner being the widow and his son Gurbux Singh who was residing with the petitioner became the tenants. In the written statement, it has further been stated that the respondent No. 3 is not the landlord of the petitioner and she never paid any rent to him. The will on the basis of which the plaintiff respondent No. 3 claimed the ownership of the accommodation is a forged and fictitious document. The Trial Court framed the following issues; (1) Whether the defendant has committed default in the payment of rent? (2) Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties? (3) Whether the defendant has denied the plaintiff's title and its effect? (4) To what relief the plaintiff is entitled? (5) Whether the suit is bad for non -joinder of parties? According to the trial court, the notice demanding arrears of rent and terminating the tenancy was served by refusal and the service was held to be sufficient. While dealing with Issue Nos. 2 and 3, the Trial Court held that on the basis of the Municipal records. Ramendra Singh has been shown as the owner. Originally the grand father Sri Bishan Singh was the owner and landlord of the disputed property. After his death, on the basis of the Will, the grand son became the owner. Copy of the Will has been brought on record which has been proved by the plaintiff Ramendra Singh and his father Charan Jeet Singh (P.W. 3). In accordance with the terms of the aforesaid will, the plaintiff under the guardianship of his father Charan Jeet Singh became the owner. This has also been accepted by the tenant when the rent under Section 30 of U.P. Act, 13 of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act, was deposited. Thus from the aforesaid material, it is established that the respondent No. 2 is the owner of the disputed property. As regards Issue No. 5 the Trial Court held that in accordance with the definition of 'tenant' under Section 3 of the Act, the tenancy would devolve only on such heirs who are residing with the tenant -in -chief. From the material on record, it is established that the son Gurbux Singh was not living with his father at the time of his death and he can not be treated to have inherited the tenancy right. Thus Smt. Jaswant Kaur is the sole tenant and as such neither the notice terminating the tenancy is illegal nor the suit is bad for non -joinder of parties.
(3.) AGAINST the aforesaid order dated 29 -6 -1989, S.C.C. Revision No. 6 of 1989 was filed by the tenant which has also been dismissed by the impugned order dated 4 -4 -1991. The learned II Additional District Judge has affirmed the findings of the trial court. The notice terminating the tenancy was returned with the endorsement of refusal on 3 -6 -1987. The affixation of notice on a conspicuous part of the building was made on 7 -6 -1987. In the written statement, as the defendant has not specifically denied the service of notice by refusal, the same would be presumed to be served. The return of notice with the postal endorsement of refusal imputes the tenant with constructive notice of the contents of the notice and would be sufficient service in the eyes of law. The learned Judge further held that Jameet Singh, the husband of the petitioner, was the original tenant and on his death, the tenancy rights devolved on his widow alone as Gurubux Singh his son was not living with his father at the time of his death on 11 -11 -1980. The rent receipts and application moved by Gurbux Singh before the Tax Superintendent, Municipal Board, indicates that his mother Smt. Jaswant Kaur was the tenant in the disputed premises. Even in the application under Section 30 of the Act, Smt. Jaswant Kaur alone has filed the application without impleading Gurbux Singh as tenant. In the written statement, initially the defendant did not take the plea that Gurbux Singh was tenant with her and the introduction of this plea in the written statement at a later stage establishes an after -thought. As the defendant failed to establish that Gurbux Singh resided with his father late Jameet Singh, the Trial Court has rightly held that the notice was in accordance with law and the suit is not bad for non -joinder of parties and that Smt. Jaswant Kaur was the sole tenant.;