GANGA RAM Vs. PHULWATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this second ap peal the main point for consideration is What presumptions may be drawn when it is found that a combined notice of demand of rent under Section 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (3 of 1947) and Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (as am ended by Act 20 of 1929) was sent by re gistered post by the landlord to the correct address of the tenant, but was received back by the landlord undelivered with an endorsement made by some one in the post office that the addressee had refused to take the notice on a particular day.

(2.) THE Plaintiff had not led any evi dence to show that the endorsement had been made by the postman concerned. In second appeal filed by the tenant the con tention is that in the absence of such evi dence having been led on behalf of the Plaintiff no presumption of service could be made under Section 114 of the Indian Eviction Act.

(3.) WHENEVER a notice for ejectment under Section 106 of the Transfer of Pro perty Act is attempted to be served on a tenant by means of a registered post,, Riving the correct address of the tenant,, but is received back with an endorsement "not met" or "refused" the question arises as to what presumptions can safely be drawn regarding the service of notice where the actual proof of service is want ing.