SHASHI KUMAR Vs. DHARAM PAL SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') on behalf of the tenants/ appellants is directed against the judgment and order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated April 28, 1980 confirming the judgment and order of the Additional Controller, Delhi, dated March 23, 1979 whereby an order of eviction was passed against the appellant under section 14(l)(a) read with proviso to section 14(2) of the Act.

(2.) Shashi Kumar, appellant, is a tenant under the respondents in a portion on the first floor of property situated at 176/23, Desh Bandhu Gupta Road, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, on a monthly rent of Rs. 140.00 besides electricity and water charges. The respondents had purchased the suit property on July 2, 1975. The appellant has been in arrears of rent since January 1, 1978. The respondents allege that the rent was payable in advance every month. A notice dated February 18, 1978, was issued by the respondents to the appellant alleging that the rent was payable in advance, that an amount of Rs. 280.00 was due on account of rent for January and February, 1978. This notice was sent by registered post as well as under certificate of posting on February 18, 1978. The registered cover was received back undelivered. The respondents thereafter got a copy of the said notice dated February 18, 1978, pasted at the premises of the appellant tenant in the presence of two witnesses on March 9, 1978. The appellant on April 25, 1978 remitted a sum of Rs. 429.11 paise on account of rent by money order to the respondents vide receipt Exhibit R-I. It appears that the money order was tendered to the respondents on April 29, 1978, and it was refused. The amount of the money order was repaid to the appellant on or about May 5, 1978 vide money order coupen Exhibit R-2. It appears that the appellant had deducted a sum of Rs. 130.89 paise on account of alleged water charges payable by the respondents to him. The respondents filed the eviction application under section 14(l)(a) of the Act on May 15, 1978 alleging that the appellant has neither paid nor tendered the arrears of rent inspite of the said notice of demand dated February 18, 1978 duly served upon him. It is further alleged that the appellant had enjoyed the benefit under section 14(2) of the Act in previous litigation between the appellant and his the then landlady Smt. Budhwanti in suit No. 195/72 decided on May 1, 1974.

(3.) As already stated the Additional Controller and the Tribunal passed an order of eviction under section 14(l)(a) of the Act against the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the notice of demand was not served by pasting under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act as alleged on March 9, 1978. His contention is that the said notice dated February 18, 1978 was never tendered to the appellant or to his wife or his family member or his servants at his residence. The Additional Controller and the Tribunal on appreciation of evidence on record have held that the notice was pasted on March 9, 1978, and it was duly served. It is in evidence of AW3 that the said notice was tendered to the wife of the appellant and she did not accept the same and thereafter the same was pasted in the presence of two witnesses i.e., AW2 and AW3. No suggestion was made to AW3 in cross-examination that the lady to whom the said notice was tendered was not the wife of the appellant. Thus it seems to me that the notice was duly tendered to the appellant's wife on March 9, 1978 and when she did not accept it, the notice was duly pasted on that date. The notice as already stated was also sent under the certificate of posting and it is deemed to have been served upon the appellant, as held in Shri Om Parkash Bahal v. Shri A.K. Shroff, 1972 R.C.R, 960 and Shri Kishan Chand Chopra v. Shri Satya Paul Chaddha and another, 1974 R.CR. 578, that service through a certificate of posting is good service. The address on the envelope containing the notice is admitted to be correct. Mere denial by the appellant that the notice under certificate of posting was not received by him is of no assistance to him.