R.P. Singh, J. - (1.) BY means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the VIIIth Additional District Judge, Agra dated April 6, 1988, dismissing the revision and upholding the order passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Agra decreeing the suit for ejectment and arrears of rent against the petitioner. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff Hazari Lal filed a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent against the petitioner on the ground that the plaintiff having purchased the house in dispute i.e. house No. 12/66, Dalai, Tajganj, Agra, was the owner of the same of which the petitioner was tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 10.00 per month and since the petitioner did not pay any rent inspite of service of notice of demand on him and was in arrears of rent for a period from August 14, 1972 to June 28, 1975, the plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent against him.
(2.) THE petitioner contested the suit on the ground that he was not the tenant of the disputed accommodation and that he was not in arrears of rent and further denied having received any notice of demand dated May 5, 1975 terminating his tenancy and hence claimed that the suit was liable to be dismissed. The Judge, Small Causes Court appraisal of the evidence on record held that the defendant was tenant of the premises in dispute of which the plaintiff was the owner and the notice of demand was held to be served on the petitioner by refusal and the petitioner having been in arrears of rent and having not paid the same inspite of service of notice of demand on him, decreed the suit for ejectment and arrears of rent. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner went up in revision before the VIIIth Additional District Judge, Agra, respondent No. 1 who also dismissed the revision vide his order dated April 6, 1988. It is these orders which are in challenge before this court. Heard Sri A.K. Banerji for the petitioner and Sri Prakash Krishna for the respondent.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the notice of demand was not served on him and it was never refused by the petitioner and the presumption that the registered letter correctly addressed was served on the addressee was a rebuttable presumption and when in the present case the petitioner had categorically stated that the notice was not served on him nor ever refused by him, the burden shifted on the plaintiff -respondent to prove due service of notice by examining the postman and the postman having not examined in the present case, the presumption was sufficiently rebutted by the denial of the petitioner regarding service of notice and hence the respondents 1 and 2 wrongly decreed the suit holding that the notice was duly served on the petitioner.;