VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Atiq Ahmad Khan, learned counsel appearing for the caveator respondents.
(2.) Present petition has been filed seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 21.9.2015 passed by the court of Khafifa Judge, Bulandshahr in Small Causes Case No. 38 of 2010 (Smt. Saedan and another v. Digambar Singh) and the impugned order dated 8.5.2018 passed by the District Judge, Bulandshahr in Small Causes Revision No. 23 of 2015 (Digambar Singh v. Smt. Saedan and another) .
(3.) A SCC suit for rent and eviction was filed on the ground that the tenant has not paid rent from July, 2007 onwards and a notice dated 15.4.2010 was issued to the petitioner which was duly served on the tenant and the notice is validly served. Even after service of notice no rent was paid and as such the suit was filed claiming rent from 17.9.2007 to 16.9.2009 and for eviction of the shop. The trial court recorded a finding that since notice was served; the tenant is not entitled for the benefit of Section 20 (4) of Act 13 of 1972; the defendant has committed default since July, 2007; and no deposit was made during pendency of the case and thus, there is violation of provision of Order 15 Rule 5 (2) CPC. A revision was filed by the tenant wherein the finding recorded regarding applicability of the Act was reversed and it was found that the Act is not applicable. The service of notice was found to be sufficient. In so far as the default is concerned the finding of the court below was upheld and it was held that the tenant has committed default for the period from August, 2007 to July, 2008 and he has not placed on record any evidence by way of receipts or money order and therefore, the revision was dismissed.;