The court emphasized the importance of providing sufficient evidence to support claims of ownership and upheld the validity of the notice served by the plaintiff in a tenant dispute.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India been filed by the petitioner-tenant challenging the order dated 27. 1. 2001 passed by the trial Court and the order dated 14. 8. 2002 passed by the revisional Court, whereby the- revision filed by the petitioner-tenant has been dismissed. The facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are as under:

( 2 ) THAT the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit with the allegation that the defendant-petitioner is the tenant of two shops at the monthly rent of Rs. 200/- per month in the building No. 11/100 turkman Gate, Aligarh, which is owned by the plaintiff. That the petitioner-tenant has not paid rent since March, 1993. That a notice demanding rent and terminating his tenancy dated 23. 11. 1993 was served on him but in spite of service of the notice, neither rent was paid nor shop was vacated. The petitioner-tenant filed written statement wherein he has taken the stand that he is not the tenant of the plaintiff-respondent and that he himself is the owner of the land over which the property is situated which he has purchased from Smt; Harpyari Devi and the petitioner-tenant has constructed the shop in dispute, therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. The trial Court formulated the following points for decision:

" (i) whether the defendant-petitioner is the owner of the property in dispute? (ii) whether the defendant has committed default in payment of rent? (iii) whether a valid notice has been served by the plaintiff terminating tenancy of the defendant? (iv) what relief, Xif any?

( 3 ) ON point No. 1, the trial Court found that the defendant who himself was examined as DW 1 has stated that he purchased the land over which the shops in dispute are standing by transfer made in Panchayat in the presence of Ranch and two persons namely Sardar Kripal Singh and prakash Kohli who are the witnesses of the aforesaid transaction wherein the defendant has purchased the property from Harpyari Devi for a sum of Rs. 85000/- and thereafter the DW 1 has constructed the building over the land in dispute in which the shop in dispute is situated. This name has also been mutated in the municipal records. He has stated in his cross examination that for raising construction he did not get any map sanctioned from the local body concerned and that house tax he has paid for the first time on 5. 10. 2000. The trial Court after examining the evidence on record found that since the property was said to have purchased for a sum of Rs. 8500/- the document should have been registered under the provisions of Registration Act but the same has not been registered and further that the so called Likhapadhi before the Panch was not filed before the Court that he is the owner of the property. It is admitted by the defendant in his statement that Sardar Kripal Singh and Prakash Kohli two witnesses, who were witnesses to the said transaction, are alive but they were not produced. In this view of the matter, the trial court rejected the argument of the defendant and held that the plaintiff is the owner of the property in dispute. The trial Court further held that the defendant are in arrears of rent since march, 1993 and has not paid the same in spite a valid notice of demand was served on the defendant. With the aforesaid finding the trial Court decreed the suit for arrears of rent for the past three years at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month for damages and for use and occupation at the same rate in future and directed the eviction of the defendant-tenant. Aggrieved thereby the defendant preferred a revision before the revisional Court and before the revisional Court same arguments were reiterated. The Revisional Court found that on the basis of the material on record the defendant have miserably failed to prove that they are not the tenant and that they are the owner. With regard to default in payment of rent, service of notice, the Revisional Court affirmed the findings of tr