Reserved on 07.10.2021

Delivered on 22.12.2021

Case :- S.C.C. REVISION No. - 75 of 2021

Revisionist :- Smt Ranjana Mishra

Opposite Party :- Kamal Kumar And 2 Others

Counsel for Revisionist :- Bharat Bhushan Paul,Saurabh Paul

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Asim Kumar Singh

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

1.

Heard Sri Bharat Bhushan Paul, learned counsel for the

revisionist and Sri Asim Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the

opposite parties.

2.

The above noted SCC Revision has been preferred by the

defendant, Smt. Ranjana Mishra, against the judgment and order

dated 13.08.2021 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Courts /

Additional District Judge, Court no.26, Agra in S.C.C. Suit No.66 of

2015, Sri Kamal Kumar and others Vs. Smt. Ranjana Mishra,

whereby suit of the plaintiffs-respondents has been decreed for

recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment.

3.

The plaitifff-respondents instituted SCC Suit No.66 of 2015

against the defendant-revisionist pleading that the defendant is

tenant of property No.37/44-A, Namnar, Eidgah Road, Agra

consisting of two rooms, latrine bathroom, kitchen and Gaukh

situated on first floor on the monthly rent of Rs.2200/- apart from

water tax. The defendant has defaulted in the payment of rent

since 01.01.2010 and therefore, she was given notice dated

20.08.2015 by the plaintiffs asking her to make the payment of

arrears of rent or to vacate and give peaceful possession of the

property in dispute to the plaintiffs. The defendant submitted a reply

dated 17.08.2015 through her counsel stating incorrect facts. She

neither paid arrears of rent nor vacated the premises in dispute

hence the suit was instituted for recovery of rent w.e.f. 01.01.2010

of three years amounting to Rs.79,200/- with 12% interest per

annum, damages at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month etc,.

4.

By the order dated 03.01.2019 the right to defence of the

defendant was struck off as per order XV, Rule 5 C.P.C.

5.

Plaintiff no.1 examined as PW-1 before the court and filed

documentary evidence in the form of the legal notice dated

20.08.2015 along with reply to the notice given by the defendant.

The trial court found following points involved in the suit.

(i) Whether there is relation-ship of landlord and tenant between

the parties?

(ii) Agreement, if any, has been violated ?

(iii) Sending of legal notice etc.,

6.

The trial court found that the relation-ship of landlord-tenant

and the monthly rent of Rs.2,200/- is admitted to both the parties.

Before the trial court counsel for the defendant submitted that in

the plaint two address of the defendants have been mentioned (i)

2 of 11

37/44, Namnar, Eidgah Road, Agra and 61/39(F), Rasoolpur, Sarai

Khwaza, Agra. The notice was also sent on a 3^rd address as

defendant being teacher at primary School, Siktra, Shamshabad

Road, Agra. It was submitted that in the acknowledgement receipt

there is no signature of the defendant. In the notice sent on

address 37/44 A, Namnar, Eidgah Road, Agra and also in the

notice sent on the second address no.69/30(F) Rasoolpur Sarai

Khwaza, Agra, there is no signature of defendant. There is

evidence of service of notice on the 3^rd address of the primary

school. It was submitted that the notice was sent on incorrect

address and therefore, it was not valid as per Section 106(4) of the

Transfer of Property Act. The plaintiff submitted that discrepancy in

address is not relevant since the defendant had duly replied to the

notice dated 20.08.2015 of the plaintiffs’ and therefore, there is no

dispute that notice was not served on her.

7.

The trial court found that the purpose of notice was only to

inform the defendant that she was required to sent her reply. The

trial court further found that not only the notice to quit was served

on her but the notice of the suit was duly served on her but she

failed to take benefit of the same. The defendant was permitted to

cross-examine PW-1 but nothing could be elicited