MUSHIYAT ULLAH Vs. ABDUL WAHAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the defen dant's second appeal.

(2.) THIS dispute in this case relates to a house situate in the district of Gonda of which the respondent Abdul Wahab is the landlord and in which the appellant Mushiyat Ullah has been living as a tenant on his behalf. The respondent brought a suit against the appellant Mushiyat Ullah for ejectment of this house and for reco very of arrears of rent alleging that he had sent a registered notice on 10-4-1969 at the Gorakhpur address of the appellant which was received back with an endorsement of refusal by the postman. The suit was re sisted on a variety of grounds, one of which was that no notice, as alleged for the res pondent-plaintiff, was ever served upon the appellant nor was it ever refused by him. It is not necessary for the purpose of this ap peal to notice the other grounds of defence. The trial Court raised a presumption of ser vice of the notice under Section ] 14 of the Evidence Act and Section 27 of the Gene ral Clauses Act and decreed the suit for ejectment with costs. On appeal, the judg ment and the decree of the trial Court were affirmed and, therefore, the defendant comes to this Court.

(3.) TURNING to the second submission no doubt the lower appellate Court did not in so many words hold that the presump tion which arose in this case had not been rebutted, but made observations which im plied that the statement of the defendant-, appellant in denial of service or refusal of the notice was disbelieved. The only evi dence which was produced on the appel lant's side consisted of his oxvn statement. The defendant denied having received any notice or having refused any notice. He was a highly interested witness and this statement amounted only to a bare denial of the respondent's case of refusal of the notice. A bare denial does not amount in law to sufficient evidence so as to constitute rebuttal of the presumption. There was no suggestion made by the defendant in his statement that he was not present at Gorakhpur on 18th April, 1969 when the endorsement of refusal was made by the postman. I, therefore, hold that there was no rebuttal of the presumption which was raised in this case. Similar view was taken by this Court in Salik Ram Sahu v. Bin-deshwari Ram Rauniyar, 1965 All LJ 839 and Asa Ram v. Ravi Prakash, 1966 All LJ. 421. I find no force in this argument that the presumption about service of notice was incorrectly raised by the Lower Court.