ASA RAM Vs. RAVI PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a tenants Second Appeal from the concurrent decrees of the Courts below for his ejectment from a shop. The defendant appellant Asa Ram is the tenant of the shop of which the plaintiff-respondent is the landlord. The plaintiff obtained the permission of the commissioner under S. 3 of the U.P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act to eject the appellant and after terminating the tenancy filed this suit.

(2.) THE only argument advanced by Mr. K.M. Sinha for the appellant is that the Courts below erred in presuming that the notice terminating the tenancy was received by the appellant and refused. It appears that the landlord sent the notice by registered post but it was returned by the Post Office with the endorsement refused. Mr. Sinha contends that after the appellant had denied receipt of notice, the presumption was rebutted. I cannot agree. The appellants denial was not sufficient to rebut the presumption unless he was believed by the Court, but he was not. This question was considered at length in Wasu Ram v. R.L. Sethi, 1963 All WR (HC) 472. Counsel for the respondent states that the principle of law laid down in that case was recently approved by a Bench of this Court in Kanhaiya Lal v. Smt. Savitri Devi, Second Appeal No. 518 of 1962 (All).

(3.) NO other point was urged. The appeal is dismissed with costs. The order staying the ejectment of the appellant is vacated. Appeal dismissed.