UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED Vs. BHIM SAIN MAKHIJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . Is sending a notice by registered post in addition to its affixation on the outer-door of the public premises a proper service within the meaning of sub-section 3 of Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants)Act, 1971 (hereinafter called the Act) and Rule 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Rules, 1971 (hereinafter called the Rules)? I am called upon to answer this question. However, before I proceed to do so, a thumb-nail description of the background is called for.

(2.) . The respondents before me had taken on rent a part of the basement of the building commonly known as UCO Bank building at Parliament Street, New Delhi. The landlord was the United Commercial Bank. By a notice dated August 8, 1978 the Bank terminated the tenancy. Thereafter eviction proceedings under the Act were initiated before the Estate Officer Who issued a notice to the respondents under section 4 of the Act read with rule 4 of the Rules. Whereas a copy of the notice was affixed on the outer-door of the tenanted premises, yet another was sent by registered post. However, as none appeared on behalf of the tenant, the Estate Officer proceeded ex parte and thereupon passed an order of eviction. Aggrieved by that order the tenant preferred an appeal which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge holding that the notice issued under sub section (1) of section 4 of the Act had not been served in accordance with sub-section (3) of section 4 of the Act read with Rule 4 of the Rules on the ground that the notice which was required to be sent by registered post acknowledgement due had actually been sent by registered post only. It was thereupon the turn of the Bank to feel aggrieved. Hence this writ petition.

(3.) . It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that since notice had been served by affixation in terms of sub-section (3) of section 4 of the Act ana as it had also been sent by registered post though not by registered post acknowledgment due, the service ought to have been held fficient. In support my attention was drawn to a judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s. Madan & Co. v. Wazir Jaivir Chand, J.T. 1988 (4) SC 520. Of course, I shall be dealing with this judgment later in greater details. At present, let me mention that on behalf of the respondents it was argued that since the notice was not sent by registered post acknowledgment due, therefore, the requirement of Rule 4 of the Rules had not been complied with and as such service of the notice could not be taken to have been effected. I may, at this stage, hasten to add that in response to this contention it was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Rule 4 of the Rules was beyond the Act inasmuch as section 4 of the Act did not authorise any mode of additional service.