Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2716 (ALL)

Mangli Prasad v. Aisha Khatoon

2014-09-04

PANKAJ MITHAL

body2014
JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal,J. Heard Sri B.N. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vishnu Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Petitioner is a tenant. He has preferred this writ petition after having lost in the courts below in suit for arrears of rent and eviction. The judgment and orders of the courts below have been assailed by this writ petition. 3. In the first instance counsel for the petitioner has tried to assail the said judgments on the ground that the suit could not have been decreed as the notice terminating tenancy was not proved. 4. Record of the case was summoned and it was found that the notice terminating tenancy was not initially proved in the examination-in-chief on affidavit by the respondent/landlord but latter on the witness was recalled and his statement was recorded proving the notice. 5. In view of above, the submission that the notice was not proved fails and is rejected. 6. Secondly, an attempt has been made to establish that the service of the notice was not sufficient upon the petitioner. 7. The notice was served personally upon the petitioner and his signatures were obtained. The petitioner has denied the service of notice but on record there is no evidence to rebut the presumption regarding the service of notice or to prove that it does not bear his signatures. 8. In view of above, this submission is also not tenable in law. 9. Sri Agrawal has laid emphasis on the fact that the courts below have committed an error in not according the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act by disregarding the deposit made by the petitioner under Section 30 of the Act. It has been submitted that the petitioner has made deposits under Section 30 of the Act prior to the issuance of the notice. The deposits so made ought to have been considered for the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act but the revisional court erred in not making any distinction between the deposits made prior to the notice of demand and those made afterwards. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner admits after perusing the record of the court below that no tender or challan regarding any deposit made under Section 30 of the Act is on record. 11. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner admits after perusing the record of the court below that no tender or challan regarding any deposit made under Section 30 of the Act is on record. 11. In absence of any evidence on record regarding deposit made under Section 30 of the Act petitioner is not entitle to benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there is no merit in the petition. It is accordingly dismissed. 13. The record of the court below be returned.