Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Briefly stated, it is the case of the appellant that by way of the impugned judgment, she had been directed to pay or tender rent @ Rs. 2,000/- per month alongwith 15% interest from August, 2009 till date which direction is arbitrary, perverse, erroneous, illegal, suffers from material irregularity and passed with by deliberately closing the eyes to the entire evidence of the appellant and with biased mind which has resulted in miscarriage of justice.

3. It is stated that in the absence of pleading all the fundamental elements as mandated by Section 14(1)(a) of the DRC Act in the Eviction petition, does any cause of action arise at the first place. It is further stated that while disposing off the Eviction suit finally, is it permissible for the Ld. Trial Court to leave the rate of rent open for guessing by not recording an affirmative finding on it but at the same time directing that "since the rent is not @ Rs.1800/- per month, it should be paid Rs. 2000/- per month" without justifying as to on what grounds it was directed so. It is further stated that can an Eviction suit be brought by the landlord on a wrong, defective, incomplete, incorrect, insufficient address, furthermore with incorrect, wrong site plan/wrong measurements of property, particularly when the landlord is fully aware of the exact, correct address of the tenant and many litigations on that correct address had been instituted long before the present Eviction suit as well as immediately after the Eviction suit by the landlord.

4. It is stated that the fact that the Court notice sent on 19.08.2010 on the address contained on the Eviction Petition was also returned back unserved as recorded in the order dated 26.10.2020 cannot be ignored. It is further stated that a notice sent at the said incomplete and incorrect address, which was returned by all three different competent authorities with the endorsements "destination address incomplete", "insufficient address", "incorrect address", "address problem", "destination address incomplete" constitute a valid service particularly when the landlord is aware of the correct address and further the tenancy terms and the lease agreement expressly provide for the correct address, mode of service and alternate address, which contractual terms were not complied with by the landlord.

6. It is stated that why not the presumption under Section 144 Evidence Act against the landlord should be made on his non- production of the returned envelope that "has the returned envelopes been produced, the incorrect address stated thereon as well as the endorsement made thereon the said returned envelopes by the Postman and DTDC Courier would become open before the Court and that the same would disprove service and expose the falsity of the landlord'. It is further stated that does a landlord approaching the Court with unclean hands by not pleading the fact of return of the said envelopes containing the alleged notice, rather concealing the material fact of such return, and not placing/producing the returned envelopes on judicial record with a view to conceal the incorrect address stated on the returned envelopes and to conceal the said endorsements made by the said competent authorities and further making a false averment in the evidence affidavit as well as in the cross examination that the said envelopes were never returned back- entitled to any relief.

23. It is stated that on the day the said rejoinder was written, the appellant had no occasion or opportunity to know as to on what address the notice alleged in the Written Statement was actually sent by the respondent and was merely presuming that it might have been sent at the correct address as agreed in the contract Mark-A and might have been returned owing to her being out of station as no family member was available behind her. It is further stated that the said presumption was rebutted by plausible evidence on 03.02.2011 when the area Postman confirmed that one registered AD envelope was returned by him straightaway without tendering with endorsement 'unserved" due to wrong, incomplete and incorrect address; and that the same confirmation was also given by the DTDC Courier. It is thus stated that the burden was upon the respondent to produce the said returned envelope and to show to the Court as to for what reason the said two envelopes were returned back to him.