- (1.) RAKESH Sharma, J. By means of instant writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the judgment and order dated 12. 1. 2007, whereby the Suit No. 39 of 1997 [shiv Raj Singh (since deceased) and others versus Ashok Kumar] was decreed by the Judge, Small Causes Court and the judgment and order dated 18. 5. 2007 whereby, the revision filed by the petitioners was dismissed and the judgment of the Small Causes Court was confirmed.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submits that both the Courts below have erred in holding that the notice was properly served before initiating litigation, which in fact was defective and it was not served on the petitioners' correct address. In this regard, he points out that the petitioners' correct address is 8/52, Vikas Nagar, Lucknow, whereas the notice has been served at 5/82, Vikas Nagar, Lucknow. Since the property notice was not served at the correct address of the petitioners, the findings recorded by the Courts below were erroneous. As regard the default in payment of rent,learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he was regularly paying the rent and during litigation, it was deposited in the lower Court. The Court has committed an error in not considering the fact that the petitioners had deposited the amount till October, 1999. The tenancy agreement, according to learned counsel for the petitioners, was not properly terminated. Mr. S. K. Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has resisted the admission of the writ petition. According to him, the notice was legal and valid and it was duly served at the address of the petitioners' shop. Admittedly, he was carrying on business at the premises situated in Aliganj. Both the courts below have dealt with this point and has come to the conclusion that the notice was duly served and the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act were rightly followed.
(3.) IN this regard, he has placed reliance on the law laid down by this Court in the case of Gulab Chand Verma Versus Badri Narain Misra 2004 (57) ALR 11 : [air 2005 Alld 133]. If a co-owner of the shop has sent a notice, it can be treated as a valid notice. Counsel for the respondents has also submitted that the interim order dated 25. 5. 2007 has been passed as the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not brought to the notice of this Court and no condition has been imposed in the interim order as laid down in the case of Ganga Prasad Versus M/s. Hanif Opticians and others.;