JUDGMENT A.N.Dikshita, J. 1. This revision under Section 25 JSCC Act has been directed against the judgment and order dated 2nd December, 1988, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for eviction and for recovery of rent and mesne profits amounting to Rs. 3960/- with pendente lite and future damages for wrongful occupation at the rate of Rs. 110/- per month. 2. The facts in narrow compass are that the applicant is a tenant of the opposite party of house situate at Jhankar Gali, Tappal, Tahsil Khair, District Aligarh on a monthly rental of Rs. 110/-. The opposite party alleged that the applicant is a bad pay master and has not paid rent since December, 1983 inspite of repeated demands, whereupon, the opposite party served a notice on the applicant calling upon him to pay the rent and also terminating his tenancy on the expiry of the statutory period. This notice was allegedly served on the applicant on 23-10-1986, 3. Failing to comply with the requirement of the notice the opposite party filed a suit for eviction. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties the suit was decreed as stated above. 4. Hence this revision. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the applicant Sri D. P. Singh has submitted that an amount of Rs. 9000/- was spent in the repair of the house with the consent of the landlord. However, the trial court found that such a consent is utterly wanting and the applicant had no right to adjust Rs. 9000/- in the rent. It would thus, be clear that the applicant was in arrears of rent and despite demands failed to pay it. The submission as advanced on behalf of the applicant is, thus, unfounded. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has very vehemently submitted that the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act has not been served on the applicant. This is not disputed that the notice was not served personally on the applicant but is alleged to have been served on one Saroj. It is being submitted that Saroj is no one-else but the wife of the applicant and the service on wife would.be deemed to be the service on the applicant. With all the vehemence at his command Sri D. P. Singh has submitted that Saroj is an illiterate lady. It is being submitted that Saroj is no one-else but the wife of the applicant and the service on wife would.be deemed to be the service on the applicant. With all the vehemence at his command Sri D. P. Singh has submitted that Saroj is an illiterate lady. The trial court drew adverse presumption in her non-production in the court. It is a common knowledge that in our society a litigant does not drag his wife to the court. It is the postman, who served the notice at Saroj, who has not been produced. Even the opposite party has never seen Saroj writing and does not recognise her signature. It, thus, cannot be held that the notice has been served. LEARNED counsel for the opposite party Sri A. K. Gupta has adopted a very reasonable attitude in the case. Such an attitude is heartening to the boosom of the Judges. Such legal activism deserves to be applauded as it culminates in a bitterly fought litigation into one of happy ending. Re-adjustment between the parties and healing of the wounds of litigation have been amply demonstrated by the advocacy of Sri A. K. Gupta. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant Sri D. P. Singh has submitted that the entire amount due to the opposite party would be paid within a month from today i.e. by 11th December, 1989. I consider that with such payment of the amount a likely protected proceeding which has made foes of friends but the settlement of the dispute with the assistance of the Bar as resolved and has made friends of foes. LEARNED counsel Sri D. P. Singh has submitted that he would pay the entire amount of arrears due till 31st October, 1989 along with the interest at the rate of 9 percent thereon as well as costs of the suit within a month. An undertaking in the form of affidavit shall be filed by the applicant before the Court below by November 15, 1989. In case the amount is not paid, then the decree shall be executed forthwith for the realisation of the amount of arrears except the decree for eviction. The decree is partly allowed and decree for eviction is set aside. The opposite party would be entitled to the entire arrears of rent with the interest at the rate of 9 per cent thereon.