RAKESH TIWARI, J. - (1.) HEARD counsels for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) COUNTER -affidavit was filed on 13.1.2006 but no rejoinder -affidavit has been filed till date rebutting the allegations contained in the counter -affidavit. The case of the petitioner is that Sri Tulsi Ram father of the petitioner Sri Satish Chandra had taken the accommodation in dispute from the father of the present respondent -landlord. After the death of Sri Tulsi Ram, the tenancy devolved upon Smt. Surma Devi, his widow and after her death the tenancy devolved upon the legal heirs S/Sri Satish Chandra, Raj Kumar and Ashok Kumar. The burden of proof was upon Sri Satish Chandra to establish that only he was living with his mother at the time of her death and that his other two brothers had been living separately; but in his written statement, he did not state anywhere that they were living separately. Smt. Surma Devi died in 1984 and there is no whisper since when two brothers started living separately and acquired their own houses. The Court also found from the statement of Sri Satish Chandra, the petitioner that his statement is silent as regards the aforesaid facts and that the notice dated 12.7.2000 is the basis of the suit and not the notice dated 10.8.1983. The Court held that tenancy would devolve from Sri Tulsi Ram and not from Smt. Surma Devi. After appreciating the evidence and pleadings of the parties the Court decided issue Nos. 2 and 3 in this regard as under: [VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]
(3.) A notice dated 10.8.1983 was sent to the petitioner and Smt. Surma Devi, his mother by Sri B. P. Bansal, advocate which was replied on 29.8.1983. Another notice dated 12.7.2000 was then sent to the tenant -petitioner by the respondent -landlord, which too was replied by means of letter dated 8.8.2000. Thereafter, the respondent -landlord filed suit for arrears of rent and ejectment of the tenant. The suit was contested by the petitioner -tenant by filing written statement dated 3.7.2001 denying the plaint allegations.;