SANGEET LODHA, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 19.8.2011 of Appellate Rent Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar, whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent-landlord questioning the legality of the order dated 15.10.2008 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar in Rent Case No. 110 of 2005, dismissing the petition preferred seeking eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question, stands allowed and accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be evicted from the premises in question.

2. The respondent/landlord filed a petition for eviction and recovery of rent against the petitioner/tenant before the Rent Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar. The eviction was sought on the ground of default in payment of rent in terms of the provisions of Section 9(a) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short the Act). The petition was contested by the petitioner/tenant by filing a reply thereto. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Tribunal framed the issues and parties led their evidence.

3. After due consideration of the evidence on record, the Rent Tribunal arrived at the finding that in absence of acknowledgment receipt showing that notice sent by the respondent/landlord was served upon the petitioner/tenant, he cannot be said to have defaulted in payment of rent for a period of four months and therefore, the landlord is not entitled for order of eviction in terms of provisions of Section 9(a) of the Act. Accordingly, the petition preferred by the respondent/landlord was dismissed by the Rent Tribunal vide order dated 15.12.2008.

4. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent/landlord preferred an appeal before Appellate Rent Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar. After due consideration of the rival submissions, the Appellate Rent Tribunal arrived at the finding that the notice for a period of 30 days was sent by the respondent/landlord to the petitioner/tenant by way of registered post on 7.7.2005 disclosing his bank account number, in respect whereof a presumption of service has to be drawn keeping in view, the provisions of Section 114 of Evidence Act. The Appellate Rent Tribunal found that notice was sent on the correct address and therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to take the stand that he has not received the notice. The Appellate Rent Tribunal found that the petitioner tenant having failed to deposit the rent despite service of notice within a period of 30 days and thus, being in default of payment of rent for a period exceeding four months, is liable to be evicted from the premises in question. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the respondent/landlord was allowed. Hence, this petition.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Appellate Rent Tribunal has seriously erred in drawing presumption of service of notice upon the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that as per proviso to Section 9(a) of the Act, the respondent/landlord was required to serve the notice disclosing his bank account number, by registered post acknowledgment due and therefore, in absence of acknowledgment receipt showing that the notice was served upon the petitioner, he cannot be evicted from the premises in question on the ground of default in payment of rent in terms of Section 9(a) of the Act. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner having denied the receipt of the notice, burden was upon the respondent to prove that notice was duly served upon the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that nothing prevented the respondent to make an application before the Rent Tribunal for summoning the postman for examination as witness. Learned counsel would submit that the respondent having failed to produce any cogent evidence to prove the factum of service of notice, the order passed by the Rent Tribunal was just and proper. Learned counsel submitted that the Appellate Rent Tribunal has ignored the evidence on record showing that the rent was paid by the petitioner to the respondent/landlord