RAIS AHMAD Vs. SPECIAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. The petitioner seeks writ of certiorari quashing the judg ment and decree dated 31-1-1994 passed by the Judge Small Causes Court, respondent No. 2, and the order dated 21-1-97 passed by respondent No. 1 dismissing the revision against the aforesaid order.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that respon dent No. 3 filed Suit No. 5 of 1992 against the petitioner for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages on the allegation that the petitioner was a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 150/ -. He failed to pay rent since 1-1-1984. A notice dated 6-9-1991 was given to the petitioner demanding arrears of rent since 1-1-1984 and terminating his tenancy. THE petitioner filed written statement in the suit. It was alleged by him that the rate of rent was Rs. 55 per month and not Rs. 150/- per month. He denied that the rent was due since 1-1-1984. He had sent Money Order dated 10th September, 1986 to the plaintiffs. He further denied that any notice sent by the respondents on 6th September, 1991 was received by him. THE trial court recorded a finding that the notice was received by the petitioner. THE rate of rent was Rs. 150/-per month and it was due since 1st January, 1984. THE suit was decreed on 31-1-1994. THE petitioner preferred revision against the said order and respon dent No. 1 dismissed the revision on 21-1-1997 by the impugned order.

(3.) RULE 62 and 63 of the Indian Post Office RULEs read with Section 114 of the Evidence Act also raises that presumption. RULE 63 refers to obtaining the signature of the addressee. They read as under- "62. A receipt shall be given to the person who presents an article for registration at the post office window during the hours prescribed for posting registered articles. 63. No registered article shall be delivered to the addressee unless and until he or his agent has signed a receipt for it in such form as the Director-General shall prescribe. "