MOHAMMADOO KHAN Vs. GHULAM RASUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment from a portion of house No. 99/335, Kanghi Mohal, Kanpur and for recovery of Rs. 83/- as arrears of rent and Rs. 7.50 Paise as mesne profits.

(2.) THE suit was filed on the alle gation that the plaintiff was the landlord of the house aforesaid, that the defendant was his tenant in a portion of the said house on the ground floor at a monthly rent of Rs. 3.75 P. and that he had not paid rent from August 24, 1961 to May 24, 1963 in spite of the notice of demand dated June 5, 1963 having been served upon him on June 12, 1963. The appel lant contested the suit inter alia on the allegations - that the notice of demand had not been served upon him, that he had already deposited the rent claimed in pro ceedings under Section 7-C of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (hereinafter referred to as Section 7-C) on July 11, 1963 and that he was not a defaulter in the payment of rent. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the notice of demand had been duly served on the defendant appellant and that the deposit of Rs. 37.50 P. representing rent from 24-8-1962 to 23-6-1963 made under Section 7-C on July 11, 1963 could not save him from being a defaulter inas much as the said deposit was made after the service of notice of demand upon him on June 12, 1963. On these findings the trial Court decreed the suit for ejectment and arrears of rent amounting to Rupees 39.40 P. and pendente lite and future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 3.75 P. per mensem. The aforesaid decree of the trial Court was affirmed on appeal by the Addi tional District Judge, Kanpur on May, 4, 1965.

(3.) IN regard to the first submis sion made by the learned counsel for the appellant it may be pointed out that both the Courts below have concurrently held that the notice of demand dated June 5, 1963, which was sent by registered post, was tendered to the appellant on June 12, 1963 but was refused of him as was clear from the endorsement made by the postal authorities and consequently the notice would be deemed to have been sufficient ly served upon the appellant. In Ganga Ram v. Smt. Phulwati, 1970 All LJ 336 = (AIR 1970 All 446), a Full Bench of this Court took the view that where a notice was sent by registered post and came back with the endorsement of 're fused' made by the postal authorities, the mere endorsement is sufficient in the eye of law to justify the presumption of ser vice of the notice on the addressee. In this view of the matter there seems to be no error in the finding recorded by the Courts below that the notice of demand dated June 5, 1963 was duly served upon the appellant on June 12, 1963.