SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Chaudhary Subhash Kumar, learned counsel for Defendant-Petitioner and Sri Shreeprakash Singh, learned counsel for the Plaintiff-Respondent No. 1/landlord.
(2.) This petition under Article 227 of the Contitution of India has been filed praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 18.02.2010 in S.C.C. Case No. 46 of 2005 (Hari Datt Sharma v. Sushil Kumar Kopra) passed by the Judge Small Cause Court, Jhansi and the judgment dated 10.07.2015 in Small Cause Revision No.39 of 2010 (Sushil Kumar Kopra v. Hari Datt Sharma) passed by the Additional District Judge/ Special Judge, E.C. Act, Jhansi.
(3.) This petition was heard at length on 12.09.2017 and the following order was passed: "Heard Sri Chaudhary Subhash Kumar, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner/tenant and Sri Shree prakash Singh, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents/landlords. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Contitution of India praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 18.02.2010 in S.C.C. Case No.46 of 2005 (Hari Datta v. Sushil Kumar) passed by the Judge, Small Cause Court, Jhansi and the judgment dated 10.07.2015 in S.C.C. Revision No.39 of 2010 (Sushil Kumar v. Hari Datta) passed by the Additional District Judge/Special Judge, E.C. Act, Jhansi. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner submits that there is no pleading of the plaintiffs-respondents that a second notice was sent on 12.08.2005 terminating the tenancy which was served by refusal upon the defendant-petitioner on 18.08.2005. Therefore, in the absence of any valid notice terminating the tenancy, the Suit could have been decreed. He submits that the findings recorded by both the Courts below with respect to the service of notice terminating the tenancy, is perverse. Plaintiffs-Respondents supports the impugned judgments. Perusal of the judgment and decree dated 18.02.2010 shows that while deciding Issue No.2, the Trial Court recorded a finding that the notice dated 03.08.2005 sent by registered post being postal Receipt No.38-C and Envelope 39-C, were proved by the plaintiffs-respondents by Affidavit 26-C that the notice was served upon the defendant-petitioner by refusal on 18.08.2005. Copy of the aforesaid Affidavit 26-C has been filed by the defendant-petitioner along with the petition. Let a supplementary affidavit be filed within five days annexing therewith copy of the Affidavit 26-C. Put up on 19.09.2017. Interim order, if any granted earlier, is extended till the next date fixed.";