Hon’ble Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.—Heard Sri Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri S.K.Mehrotra as well as Sri Vimal Mishra, learned counsel who have put in appearance on behalf of opposite parties No. 2 and 3.

2. This civil revision filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 has questioned the correctness of judgment and decree rendered by Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Faizabad in S.C.C Suit No. 09 of 2011 whereby suit for eviction and arrears of rent coupled with damages filed by the revisionist was dismissed, specifically deciding issue No. 4. against the revisionist and in favour of the respondents/tenants.

3. Briefly stated, background of the case proceeds in the light of a lease agreement dated 19.11.2007 which created tenancy rights for a period of five years extendable on the mutual consent of the parties. The rent in the lease agreement was stipulated as Rs.6000/-per month. As per the stand taken by the revisionist-landlord, the respondents/tenants committed default in making payment of rent as well as house tax as a result whereof notice was sent to the respondents on 27.6.2011 through speed post on correct residential address as mentioned in the alleged agreement which was duly stamped and posted and thus service of notice though refused to be accepted by the addressee as per postal endorsement though being sufficient was not complied with, as a result, suit of above description was filed.

4. According to the revisionist notice sent to the respondents was duly served on 29.7.2011 and non compliance of notice sent to the respondents gave rise to S.C.C Suit No. 9 of 2011 which was instituted before the Court below on 29.8.2011. Summons of the suit instituted before the Court below were issued to the respondents and on deeming the service of notices/summons sufficient, record reveals that the proceedings went ahead ex parte. The suit for eviction was decreed ex parte on 20.12.2011 against the respondents and a decree for realization of arrears of rent and taxes was also passed.

5. The ex parte judgment and decree dated 20.12.2011 was sought to be set aside by filing an application on the ground that summons were not duly served, therefore, the ex parte decree/judgment passed by the Court below may be set aside and that the respondents/defendants be permitted to put forth their defence so as to contest the proceedings.

6. The Court below by judgment dated 29.4.2013 allowed the application filed by the respondents under Order IX Rule 13 CPC subject to payment of Rs.1000/- towards the cost within a period of 15 days. This order passed by the Court below was not challenged and the suit proceedings progressed thereafter with due participation of the respondents.

7. It may be noted that the plaint filed by the revisionist had primarily based his case of re-entry upon the rented property on the stipulations contained in lease agreement dated 19.11.2007 but the respondents in absence of the said agreement being registered denied creation of tenancy through written agreement altogether. The respondents however accepted their status as tenants and ownership of the revisionist was also not disputed in the written statement filed by them.

8. Though the creation of tenancy under a written agreement was denied but the commencement of tenancy, rate of rent etc. was admitted from the same date on which agreement was alleged to be entered between the parties. This position does give an indication as if the stand of denial adopted by the tenant was taken in order to defeat the term of five years tenancy as per the agreement which was unregistered.

9. The respondents/tenants took a categorical stand that conditions mentioned in an unregistered agreement are not enforceable as per the provisions of Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 49 of the Registration Act 1908, hence notice issued by the revisionist was of no consequence.

10. It is not in dispute that