Hon'ble P. C. Verma, J. :

Through this revision u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act the revisionist (defendant) assailed the judgment and order dated 25.11.1997. and decree dated 10.12.1997 passed by the Judge Small Cause Courts (District Judge), Pauri Garhwai in S.C.C. Suit No.2 of 1992 titled as Sri Sahne Ilahi Vs. Smt. Sahin Begum, whereby the learned J.S.C.C. (District Judge), decreed the suit of the plaintiff for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises and for recovery of the arrears of rent and damages amounting to Rs. 13,554/- with costs and pendente lite and future damages @ Rs. 300/- per month excluding water tax, sewerage tax and electricity charges on the prevalent rates.

2. The suit no. 2 of 1992 was filed by the plaintiff (respondent) for recovery of rent and ejectment of the defendant (revisionist) from the suit premises on the ground that the plaintiff is the owner of the three storeyed house situated at Jaya Nand Bharati Marg, Kotdwar within the municipal limits of Kotdwar and the defendant was a tenant in two room set with a latrine, bathroom of second storey in the said building @ Rs. 300/- per month exclusive of 12.5% water tax, 3% sewerage tax, and Rs. 30 as electric charges. The defendant paid rent, water tax, etc. up to October, 1987. The defendant did not pay rent, taxes and electric charges since November 1987. Thus, the plaintiff gave notice on 22.1.1992 to the defendant demanding arrears of rent and other damages due payable within one month failing which the tenancy would terminate. The said- notice was returned on 24.01.1992 with an endorsement "refused to receive" by the defendant. The defendant neither vacated the premises nor paid the rent within one month from the service of notice, hence the suit was filed.

3. The plaintiff (respondent) claimed rent and damages for three years and claimed further damages pendente lite and further for use and occupation. The defendant was served. She appeared before the Court, moved application and also filed written statement. In the written statement, the defendant denied the arrears of rent and also disputed the pay ability of water tax, sewerage tax and electricity charges. According to the defendant, it was inclusive in the rent.

4. After filing at the written statement, the defendant did not deposit the admitted rent. Therefore, an application was moved by the plaintiff under Order 15 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code. On the next date, since the defendant did not appear, the Court ordered to proceed ex parte. The application under Order 15 Rule 5 was withdrawn and suit proceeded ex-parte. On 16.06.1993, the plaintiff was examined. The suit was decreed ex-parte. The decree was prepared on 24.06.1993. Thereafter, the defendant moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13, C.P.C. which was allowed. On depositing tl1e entire decretal amount, ex-parte judgment and decree dated 17.6.1993 and 24.6.1993, respectively were set aside.

5. After restoration of the case, the parties led their evidence and arguments were advanced on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. The learned J.S.C.C. (District Judge) after evaluating the oral and documentary evidence on record held that notice (Ex. 1) was sent to the defendant by registered A.D., it was duly tendered to the defendant and defendant herself refused to accept it, hence it was sent back with the endorsement of refusal. Therefore, it was sufficient service by refusal on the defendant.

6. The learned J.S.C.C., Pauri Garhwal, further held that the evidence on record proves that the defendant was in arrear of rent from November, 1987 till the date of service of notice. Inspite of service of notice, neither the rent was paid nor premises was vacated. Therefore, the suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent and damages was liable to be allowed and accordingly he passed the order impugned in the revision.

7. The learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the finding recorded by