SURAJ PARKASH CHHABRA Vs. SHRI GOBIND RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 39(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. In the order of the learned Rent Control Tribunal under appeal, the only point decided against the appellant was with regard to the service of notice and the appeal against the order of the learned Rent Controller was allowed on a finding that the service of the requisite notice had not been proved. Thus the only point before me is whether this finding of the leaned Rent Control Tribunal can and needs to be set aside. No other point arises or is urged.

(2.) On behalf of the appellant the attention of the learned Rent Controller was drawn to Ex. A3. copy of the notice dated 10th April, 1961 and Ex. A4 the postal receipt in respect of the registration of the despatch of the notice and Ex. A5 being the A.D. form in resect of the said notice and argue that service of the notice should be presumed to have been made in view of Section 114 of the Evidence Act, Section of the General Clauses Act and in the light of the ratio of the Judgment. Harinder Banerji vs. Ramshashi Roy and others, 1918 AIR(PC) 102.

(3.) Against this, the learned counsel for the respondent had urged that the presumption of service did not arise as the notice had not been addressed to the appellant at the correct address.