- (1.) M. Katju, J. In this case by order of this Court, dated 27-2-1991 petitioner had been directed to serve respondent No. 3 by Dasti notices. An affidavit of service has been filed by the petitioner and in Paragraph 2 it has been stated that the petitioner was directed to serve respondent No. 2 by dasti summon but it is stated that the respondent No. 2 has refused to accept the notice.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has stated that by an inadvertant mistake respondent No. 2 has been mentioned instead of respondent No. 3 in the affidavit. I am of the opinion that this mistake is purely accidental and hence I accept it. There is already an office report, dated 13-4-1995 stating that the notices were issued on 30-7-1991 by registered post but the same have not been returned back. Under Explanation II of Chapter VIII, Rule 12, of High Court Rules a notice sent by registered post shall unless it is received back from the post office as undelivered, be deemed to have been served at the time at which it would be delivered in the ordinary course. In my opinion in view of Explanation 11 to Chapter VHI, Rule 12 of the High Court Rules, there is sufficient service on respondent No. 3. Hence, 1 am proceeding to decide petition.
(3.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the impugned orders dated 29-5-1999 and 20-1-1990 (Annexures 7 and 8 to the writ petition ). I have heard Shri K. K. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. None has appealed for respondent No. 3 nor has any counter-affidavit been filed. The petitioner is the landlord of the premises in dispute. He filed a suit against respondent No. 3 for recovery of arrears of rent, mesne profit and ejectment on the ground of default in payment of rent. True copy of the plaint is Annexure-1 to the petition. The allegation of the petitioner is that the water tax has not been paid by the respondent No. 3. The contention of the respondent-tenant is that when he took the house on rent it was agreed that he would not be responsible for paying water tax to the plaintiff-landlord and that it was agreed the landlord would pay the water tax, and the tenant would only pay Ks. 90 per month. It was further contended by the defendant that after March 1984 the defendant got his own water connection and hence also he is not liable to pay water tax. The petitioner's suit was dismissed by the trial court. He filed a revision and the ravisional court held that a finding of fact has been recorded by the trial court that the sum of Rs. 90 per month which was being paid by the tenant did not include water tax.;