SHISHIR KUMAR, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) WHEN in spite of the notice, the respondents did not put in appearance, then the petitioner was permitted to serve respondents personally and to file an affidavit of service. An affidavit of service has been filed. Respondent No. 4 has accepted notice himself as well as on behalf of respondent No. 1 but respondents No. 2 and 3 have refused to take the notice. The affidavit of service has been filed on 29.9.2008. The respondents are the joint tenants living in the same accommodation, therefore, legally it will be presumed that notice upon all the respondents are sufficient. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders dated 14.1.1998 and 2.12.2000, Annexures-4 and 5 to the writ petition by which the suit filed by the petitioner being landlord for arrears of rent and ejectment has been dis- missed and the revision has also been dismissed.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that a finding has been recorded that there is a default on the part of the respondents but only on the technical ground that a notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is defective as only 30 days' time has been given in the notice though, being a commercial accommodation, it should have been 6 months, only on this technical ground, the Judge Small Causes Court has dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner.;