S.U.Khan - (1.) -At the time of hearing, no one appeared on behalf of tenant respondent, hence only the arguments of learned counsel for the landlord petitioner were heard.
(2.) THIS is landlord's writ petition arising out of S.C.C. Suit No. 1 of 1992 filed by him against tenant respondent. Initially, suit was decreed by J.S.C.C., Jalaun on 23.4.1994, however, in revision, the said judgment was set aside by order dated 13.11.1998 and trial court was directed to decide the suit again. After remand, J.S.C.C./Civil Judge (Junior Division), Konch, district Jalaun dismissed the suit through judgment and decree dated 26.7.2004. Against the said judgment and decree, petitioner filed Revision No. 9 of 2004, which was dismissed by IIIrd A.D.J., Jalaun at Orai, through judgment and order dated 16.5.2005, hence this writ petition. Admittedly, rent till 31.3.1990 had been paid by the tenant to the landlord. Admitted rate of rent is Rs. 60 per month. The dispute is regarding payment of water tax. According to the landlord, Rs. 7.20 per month is payable as water tax. However, tenant denied the said assertion. Landlord further asserted that Rs. 1.80 per month is payable as sever tax. Tenant denied the said assertion also. According to the tenant, landlord stopped accepting the rent, hence he sent money-order of the rent @ Rs. 60 per month from 1.4.1990 to 31.12.1991. It was refused by the landlord on 16.11.1991. Thereafter, tenant deposited the said rent in Misc. Case No. 4 of 1992 under Section 30 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Thereafter, rent for the month of January and February, 1992 was also deposited by the tenant in the said miscellaneous case.
(3.) THEREAFTER, in the suit giving rise to the instant writ petition on 20.4.1992, which was first date of hearing, tenant deposited the water tax alongwith interest @ 9 per cent. Total amount deposited on 20.4.1992 was Rs. 350. The notice of termination of tenancy and demand of rent was sent on 10.12.1991, which returned with the endorsement of refusal. Post-man was also examined by the landlord. The Post-man stated that even though on the envelop address of house of tenant was mentioned but he was not available at his house, hence notice was served upon him at his shop. Courts below held that on the endorsement of refusal, post-man did not get the signature of any witness, hence service of notice through refusal was not proved. In my opinion, this finding is utterly erroneous in law. Endorsement of refusal by the post-man was sufficient. There is no requirement that endorsement of refusal must be got witnessed in writing by some independent person.;