Gulsher Khan-2681

16.04.2024
Here Shri Anil Tiwari Learned Counsel for the Defendant revised and Shri Rahul Jain
and holding bring and Shri Kunal Singh Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff respondent.
The revisionist the section under 5 provision small court Act under 1887 and prayer the
set aside and judgement dearro 13.8.2016 and SCC case 19.8.2008 passed by the
special judge Additional District Judge Ghaziabad in disputedly are the honour and land
lord House No.2416 and return Ghaziabad in defendant revisionist and condemn with
effect from 10.10.2004. According to the defendant revisionist the tenancy was hourly
made for a period of monthly rupees of 25 hundred for one year and thereafter 26
hundred rupees per month. According to the plaintiff respondent the tenancy was only
for 10 months. It was alleged by plaintiff respondent that the defendant revisionist has a
residential plot and on the disputed House and he took a disputed House rate on the
undertaking that he shall get his House and constructed over his plot and shall wakened
the disputed House within 10 months on the allegation that despite service of the notice
the House was not wakened and the defendant revisionist defended in payment of
receipt SCC case No. 19 or 2008. OP Shah and allege and respondent 27.5.2008. The
defendant revisionist filed the written statement parties laid their evidence aforesaid
SCC case was despite of may be the 28.8.2006. The revisionist has been directed the
wakened the disputes Houses within 20 months and to handover wakened and peaceful
opposition and also pay arrear and arear to Rs.24 thousand. Aggrieved with this
judgement the defendant revisionist has filed the present revision the Anil Tiwari
Learned Counsel for the submitted and 29.11. 2007. The defendant respondent receipt
from rent from the defendant revisionist were 18 months out of 26 months. Since
October 29.8.2006. and 16.8.2006. For months out of 36 month and claimed an arear
during January 2008 to be Rs.2068 and arrears of public ministers. Thus the plaintiff
respondent himself their not certain about the alleged period of arrear of friend. The
plaintiff the respondent have admitted the payment of arear of rent in cash for the month
of January February and March 2008. And also admitted payment of rent through many
order for period of 10.10.2010 and 10.02.2010. This receipt a cash and within rent
subsequent to the notice for rent of the suit has been admitted by the plaintiff
respondent and therefore the contusion to tenancy can not be question has ben notice
stood wave. The determination to the rent impugned judgment at the rate of Rs.2,600
per month and accordingly in as much as defendant revisionist has prove the fact that
for one years. The Rs.2,600 per month. This fact has ben prove by paper 126 C that is
Bank Passbook which shows that certain month payment wren made by checked by
each 215 each. There are no valid notice in as much as notice of the coal plaintiff
respondent. The first dated 2.11.2007 was return in certain. The second notice
06.02.2008 send was also return in certain. There are acknowledge for the monthly
paper which could not be prove by them. The service by notice by UPC is not valid
service. Thus in the valid service any for notice termination arrears of rent an foresaid
SCC case was not entertainable no presumable can not be allegedly by sent UPC.