M.C.AGARWAL,J. - (1.) BY this revision petition under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, the plaintiff revisionists challenged the judgment and decree dated 30th March, 1984, passed by the Special Judge (E.C. Act), Etah, exercising the jurisdiction as Small Cause Court, whereby the suit of the plaintiff for eviction of the defendant respondent from the tenanted accommodation has been dismissed.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The said suit was filed for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment on the ground that the tenanted property was constructed in the year 1976 and the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, did not apply to it and the tenancy of the defendant having been determined by a notice dated 6th March, 1982, he was liable to be evicted. The learned Lower Court has held that the said Act was not applicable to the property in question. It had decreed the suit for arrears of rent, but dismissed the suit for eviction on the ground that the notice to terminate the tenant was not proved and hence it was not established that the tenancy has been terminated.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the revisionists contended that the service of a notice terminating the tenancy of the defendant was admitted by the defendant and, therefore, the burden was on the defendant to prove that the notice was not valid. He relied upon Para 6 of the plaint which stated as under :- "6. That the defendant did not pay rent to the plaintiffs from 1.10.1978 onwards, hence the plaintiffs did not wish to continue the tenancy of the said defendant and terminated the same vide notice dated 6.3.1982 given by the plaintiffs through Sri Jogeshwar Sahai, Advocate, Etah, their counsel, at the correct and sufficient address of the defendant and the same was not received back undelivered by the said counsel of the plaintiffs. It is presumed that the said notice was served on the defendant on or about 7.3.1982 in ordinary course." ;