FANNI LAL Vs. SMT. CHIRONJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Defendant is the Appellant. The suit was for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent and damages. Both the Courts below have decreed the suit on the finding that the Appellant was in arrears of rent for more than three months and had failed to pay the same inspite of service of notice of demand.

(2.) THE only point raised on behalf of the Appellant was that the notice of demand was not validly served on the Defendant. On the instructions of the Plaintiff landlord a lawyer sent a registered letter bearing on top the lawyer's address as the sender of the letter. The letter was returned to the lawyer with the postal endorsement that the addressee namely the Defendant -Appellant had refused to accept it. On this finding the Courts below drew a presumption of due service on the Defendant. The letter contained a combined notice of demand for arrears of rent as well as to quit Under Section 106, Transfer of Property Act.

(3.) WE are unable to agree with either of the two premises upon which the learned Judge based his decision.