Bharati Sapru, J. - (1.) LIST has been revised. Heard Sri M.M. Jain holding brief of Sri M.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for petitioner. The name of Sri Diwakar Sharma is shown as Counsel for the re spondent but he has not cared to appear in this matter.
(2.) THIS is a tenant's writ petition. The premises in dispute is a shop which is in the tenancy of the petitioner situated at village and Post Gangiri, Tehsil Atrauli, district Aligarh. The respondent No. 1 filed a S.C.C. Suit No. 264/1986 against the petitioner tenant for ejectment and for recovery of arrears of rent. The tenancy of the petitioner was alleged to have been terminated by means of a notice dated 19.12.1985. The original landlord was one Hamida Khatoon and subsequently the respondent No. 2 Satyavati sought impleadment stating that she has purchased the property in dispute. The petitioner tenant contested the said suit and specifically took a plea in his written statement that the notice dated 19.12.1985 which was al leged to be the notice terminating the tenancy was never served upon the peti tioner. During the pendency of the said suit one Habib Ahmad Khan also moved an application for impleadment seeking 3/4 of the rent claiming that he was also a co-landlord and that the rent claimed was to the extent of his share. He claimed that he also sent a notice to get his rent in the year 1990 in so far as notice dated 19.12.1985 is concerned, the petitioner stated that it was never re ceived by the petitioner and the acknowledgment bearing his signature was nothing but a forgery. The Trial Court after considering the evidence on record came to a conclusion that the notice dated 19.12.1985 was never served on the petitioner. The Trial Court also recorded that the plaintiff landlord had failed to prove the notice dated 19.12.1985 and thus, the suit for the relief of ejectment was dismissed by the Additional Judge, Small Causes Court Aligarh, by its decision dated 22.9.1997.
(3.) AGAINST the said judgment the plaintiff landlord moved revision No. 67/1997 in favour of plaintiff landlord and held that the petitioner tenant was liable to be evicted from the premises. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the or der passed by the Trial Court dated 8.11.1989 has been passed after considering the oral as well as other testimony of the plaintiff and the defendant and the Court had rightly come to the conclusion that the notice dated 19.12.1985 was never served on the petitioner tenant or received by the petitioner tenant.;