Dinesh Mehta,J. - (1.) Feeling aggrieved of the order dated 25.04.2019, passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, rejecting petitioner's appeal against the judgment and certificate of recovery dated 26.09.2016, the petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, enshrined under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) Before adverting to the questions raised by the petitioner, it would be appropriate to glance through factual canvas, which unfolds as under:- 2.1 The petitioner is a tenant of respondent-landlord,who filed an eviction petition under Section 9(a) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2001'), on the ground of default in payment of rent. 2.2 In the petition so filed by the respondent-landlord on 30.09.2010, it was asserted that the petitioner has defaulted in making payment of the rent from 16.07.2009 till 15.09.2010 and the total amount for the period of 14 months, turn out to be Rs. 4,550/-. It was averred that a notice dated 09.02.2010 contemplated under Section 9(a) of the Act of 2001 was given to the petitioner-tenant, requiring him to pay the arrears of rent within a period of 30 days. It was pleaded in the petition that despite receiving the notice on 10.02.2010, no payment was made by the tenant and thus, he had committed a default in payment of rent. With these averments, the respondent-landlord contended that he was entitled to a decree of eviction under the provisions of the Act of 2001. The respondent-landlord filed the petition under Section 9(a) of the Act of 2001, not only for getting the vacant possession, but also for recovery of arrears of rent. 2.3 The petitioner herein filed a reply to the eviction petition so filed by the respondent-landlord and took a plea that no rent was due; the landlord had never asked for the rent; he did not receive the notice dated 09.02.2010; and that the due amount had been sent to the landlord by way of money-order and upon its refusal, the rent was deposited in the bank account of the landlord in November, 2010. 2.4 The Rent Tribunal, settled the following issues:- ....[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]....
(3.) The Tribunal, upon analysis of the ocular and oral evidence tendered by rival parties and after threadbare discussion of the questions involved, held issues Nos. 1 and 3 against the tenant (petitioner) and in favour of the landlord (respondent). Considering the evidence, the Tribunal reached to a categorical conclusion that the landlord had sent a notice dated 09.02.2010, vide speed post, which was received at the address of tenant. The Tribunal found it to be sufficient compliance of the provisions contained in Proviso to Section 9(a) of the Act of 2001. It was inter alia observed that though the provision speaks of "registered post acknowledgment due" and not "speed post", but the service by speed post cannot be treated to be a non-compliance. Since the factum of sending the notice-Ex.1 was proved by the landlord, the Tribunal considered other evidence such as postal receipt, reply of the post office, proof of delivery, to reach to a conclusion that the notice was delivered on 10.02.2010, while drawing a presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act read with Section 27 of the General Clauses Act. A categorical finding came to be recorded by the Tribunal that the notice has reached its addressee, namely, Sohanlal S/o Girdharilal - the tenant.;