Shishir Kumar, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for petitioner. This writ petition has been filed by tenant for quashing tine order dated 19.11.2009 by which landlord's suit for arrears of rent and ejectment has been decreed vide its judgment and order dated 19.11.2009 holding therein that notice has properly been served and it was replied by tenant -petitioner and admittedly he has not deposited rent on the first date of hearing.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for petitioner submitted that there is no finding that same notice which was sent to petitioner is on record and the same has not been proved. Further rent was sent by money -order but it was refused by the landlord, therefore, petitioner cannot be held to be defaulter. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of petitioner and have perused the record. A specific finding on an objection made by petitioner's Counsel that whether notice was valid or not and whether the same notice which is on record has been sent, has not been proved. Therefore, presumption will be that notice is not valid. In para 19 of the judgment, a specific finding has been recorded that plaintiff respondent has specifically stated before the Court that Paper No. 10 -C is the notice on which he has signed and same notice was sent through his Counsel. In such situation, I am of opinion that burden was upon tenant to prove regarding the validity of the notice. As regards, default is concerned, admittedly petitioner has not deposited the amount on the first date of hearing, therefore, no benefit under section 20 sub -clause (4) can be given to petitioner, only by making an averment that rent was sent by money -order, cannot be sufficient compliance of section 20 sub -clause (4) of the Act. In view of aforesaid fact, writ petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed, however, without imposing any costs.;