Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:40454 Court No. - 7 Case :- S.C.C. REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 11 of 2023 Revisionist :- Manoj Agarwal Opposite Party :- Rajendra Kumar Shahi (Dead), Represented By His Son, Vikram Pratap Shahi, And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Pratap Singh Mehra,Desh Deepak Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Piyush Chandra Agarwal, Ravindra Kumar Singh Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. I.A. No.2 of 2023. 1. The application seeks condonation of the delay in filing the revision. 2. Cause shown is sufficient. The application is allowed. The delay in filing the revision is condoned. Order on merit 3. Heard the counsel for the revisionist and Sri Piyush Chandra Agarwal who appears for the respondents. 4. On merit, the revision has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 10.05.2023, whereby the suit filed by the respondent seeking a decree of arrears of rent and ejectment has been decreed against the revisionist. 5. The order and the judgment impugned records that the premises in question was given on rent. Subsequently, as the rent was not paid, a notice was served determining the tenancy and for arrears of rent. After exchange of the pleadings, as many as five issues were framed in between the parties. 6. While determining the issue no.1, finding of fact was recorded that the relationship of landlord and tenant stood established in between the parties. The second issue with regard to service of notice was returned by the JSCC holding that the notice dated 02.03.2009 was served unregistered cover and was received on 07.03.2009 at the address of the revisionist. The trial court recorded that the said service of notice was proved by the evidence and was found to have been served by the postal department. The acknowledgement was also found on record. Based upon the said, it was recorded that a presumption of service is drawn in favour of the respondent as the same was sent under registered cover and no evidence was led by the revisionist to rebut the said presumption and thus, it was recorded that the notice was duly served. The third issue with regard to default committed was also returned against the revisionist holding that there was a default in payment of rent up to 31.12.2008. The issue with regard to the benefit of Order 15 Rule 5, being issue no.4, was also decided against the revisionist merely on the ground that the rent was not deposited as the mandate of law. The entire payable of the rent deposited was recorded in the judgment to hold that, the deposit of rent was not in accordance with law. Thus, based upon the said findings, the suit was decreed. 7. The counsel for the revisionist argues that the service of notice was improper and was never served and thus, the suit ought to have been rejected. 8. The said contention cannot be accepted inasmuch as specific finding has been recorded that the notice was served under registered cover. Thus, a presumption existed in favour of the landlord, although it was a rebuttal presumption, no evidence was led by the revisionist to rebut the said presumption. Even otherwise, the manner in which, the rents have been paid and indicated in the impugned judgment, has not been even denied in the revision. Thus, there was a default at the instance of the revisionist and, the benefit of Order 15 Rule 5 was rightly not granted to the revisionist. 9. On all the reasons recorded above, the revision deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 15.7.2025 VNP/- Digitally signed by :- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench