JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri K.K. Arora, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Rakesh Prasad, learned counsel for opposite party.

2. Present revision has been preferred challenging the judgment and decree dated 03.10.2018 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/ F.T.C., Kanpur Nagar in S.C.C Suit No. 165 of 2015.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that revisionist is tenant and suit for eviction being SCC Suit No. 165 of 2015 was filed after sending notice dated 6.4.2015 through registered post as required under Section 106 of Transfer Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1882"). He next submitted that said notice was returned back by the postman on the very next date i.e. 7.4.2015 with remark ^^nfj;kQr djus ij ?kj okyksa us crk;k fd izkIrdrkZ vius futh dk;Z ls ckgj x;s gSa vkus dk dksbZ fuf'pr le; ugha gSA** He next submitted that as per letter dated 8.6.2015, same has been returned to addressee i.e. Jai Prakash Yadav on 10.04.2015. Therefore, under such facts of the case, once the notice has not been served and on the very next date i.e. 7.4.2015, it was returned back with the endorsement of postman and further, notice has been sent back to ad