The court emphasized the importance of a registered sale deed to establish ownership and upheld the landlord's right to arrears of rent and mesne profits.

Hon. Rakesh Tiwari, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

2. Backdrop of the case is that SCC suit no. 17 of 1984, under section 20(2)(a) of U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972, was filed by landlord late Satya Narain against the petitioner tenant for a decree of arrears of rent and eviction from the shop in dispute situated Chamanganj, Kasba Phaphund, Pergana Auraiya, district Etawah. The plaint allegation was that petitioner was tenant of the aforesaid shop at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month and he had been defaulter of rent with effect from 1.4.1978 which he was liable to pay as well as damages for the use and occupation of the same. A notice dated 1.10.1983 was served upon the petitioner on 6.10.1983 and was also replied by him vide his letter dated 7.11.183. It appears that another notice dated 26.12.1983 was also served upon the petitioner reiterating termination of his tenancy. This notice is said to have been addressed to the counsel of petitioner Sri Chandra Prakash Gupta, Advocate, civil courts, Etawah.

3. The petitioner contested the suit by filing his written statement inter alia that there was no arrears of rent due upon him in view of the fact that landlord respondent had entered into an agreement with the petitioner for sale of the shop in question in the year 1978 and that he was in possession of the property as owner in view of part performance of the agreement of sale.

4. The suit was decided by Civil Judge(Senior Division) Etawah by means of judgment and decree dated 5.2.2008. It may be pointed out here that petitioner has not filed decree with the present petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has canvassed two points before the Court, (i) that second notice dated 26.12.1983 served upon petitioner's counsel Sri Chandra Prakash Gupta, cannot be termed as a valid notice terminating tenancy of the petitioner, and (ii) that petitioner had become landlord of the property on part performance of the agreement for sale, and as such neither any rent was due not was he liable to pay damages to the erstwhile landlord.

6. According to the counsel for petitioner, the trial court had framed issue but has failed to consider the effect of non service of the notice upon the petitioner. It is stated that while deciding issue no. 3 with regard to validity of the notice, the trial court has committed an illegality while deeming service of notice upon his Advocate as sufficient service upon the petitioner. He submits that counsel of the petitioner Sri Chandra Prakash Gupta,in the civil courts, Etawah was not authorised by the petitioner to receive or send notices on his behalf and that burden lay upon the landlord respondent to demonstrate that he was authorised as the petitioner cannot lead a negative evidence, as such service of second notice dated 26.12.1983 cannot be deemed to be sufficient service upon the petitioner through his counsel.

Apart from the above contentions, counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon Order XX Rule 12 (a)(b) and (b-a),C.P.C., which provides thus:

" 12. Decree for possession and mesne profits- (1) Where a suit is for the recovery of possession of immovable property and for rent or mesne profits, the Court may pass a decree-

(a) for the possession of the property,

(b) for the rent which have accrued on the property during the period prior to the institution of the suit or directing an inquiry as to such rent;

(b-a) for the mesne profits or directing an inquiry as to such mesne profits.

7. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision relied upon by the counsel for petitioner would show that the court has power to direct for payment of arrears of rent and mesne profits also even prior to the date of institution of the suit and for this purpose, it may or may not require any inquiry to be conducted.

8. He then argued that he has been instructed by his client not to press this petition and to seek some reasonable time to vacate the shop in question, as such the p