Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:32195 Court No. - 4 Case :- S.C.C. REVISION No. - 363 of 2015 Revisionist :- Smt. Gyaso And Another Opposite Party :- Ram Prakash Counsel for Revisionist :- Sanjay Agrawal Counsel for Opposite Party :- ,Harish Chandra Mishra Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of this revision-petition the petitioner has questioned the order passed by the Judge, Small Causes dismissing the suit for ejectment and arrears of rent solely on the ground that the petitioner has not been able to establish his title qua the property in question. 3. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the pleading was raised to the effect that the petitioner was landlord of the House No.192, New No.464 situated at Mohalla Nana Bhau ka Bagh, Dadiapura, Jhansi and was the landlord thereof and got inducted the defendant as tenant for a monthly rent of Rs.500/-. 4. Since the tenant-respondent did not pay the rent, hence the notices got issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 on 21.11.2013 through Advocate which was duly served upon the tenant-respondents. However, since he did not pay the rent, it was pleaded that the defendant's defense deserved to be rejected. The tenant- defendant despite service of summons failed to appear before the trial court and hence the entire pleadings raised in the plaint remained uncontested. Petitioner led oral evidence in form of testimony of the witnesses in which it was claimed that the plaintiff-petitioner was the landlord. However, the trial court rejected those affidavits led in evidence only on the ground that these averments made in the affidavit were not part of the pleadings. 5. In my considered view, this is wholly erroneous view taken by the Judge, Small Causes in dismissing the suit. It is a well settled principal of law that parties when raise pleadings qua a particular fact, they are also required to lead oral evidence. If a party has led oral evidence in support of the pleadings raised and that remains unrebutted, the court has no other option but to accept the same in support of the pleadings raised. 6. In such above view of the matter therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the trial judge dated 08.09.2015 cannot be sustained in law. Matter is remitted to the trial court restoring the SCC Case No.1 of 2014 with a direction that the trial court to issue notice afresh and in the event the summons again are not served then Court shall resort to substituted service and proceed to decide the suit in accordance with law. 7. With aforesaid observations and directions, this petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 6.3.2025 Deepika Digitally signed by :- DEEPIKA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad