DWARKA SINGH Vs. SRI RATTAN SINGH AHUJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the owner of a shop; the respondent the tenant thereof. The respondent fell in arrears of rent for more than three months. The appellant sent him a combined notice under Section 3(1)(a) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act and Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The notice was sent by registered post and with acknowledgment due. It came back to him with the remark of refusal. On the expiry of one month thereafter he instituted a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment of the respondent. The respondent contested the suit, inter alia, on these two grounds; (1) The notice was never tendered to him nor was refused by him; (2) at any rate, one months' notice was invalid for the lease was for a manufacturing purpose. The Munsif, who heard the suit rejected all the pleas of the respondent and decreed the suit for arrears of rent as well as ejectment. On appeal, however, the suit stood dismissed qua ejectment. The appellant then filed the present second appeal in this Court.

(2.) The appeal was heard, in the first instance, by a single Judge. As he felt that the question about the service of notice was important. He referred the appeal to a larger Bench of decision. That is how the appeal comes to us for decision.

(3.) We shall take up the question of notice first. The appellant sent a registered notice with acknowledgment due. As already said, it came back with the postal remark ; "Rattan Lal (the respondent) met but refused." This remark was written on the envelope by the postman, Dhiraj Singh. He was examined by the appellant. He said that he went to the shop of the respondent on May 2, 1964, and tendered the registered notice to Rattan Singh but he refused to take it. Then he noted down on the envelope "Rattan Lal met but refused". He has put down his signature and date under the remark. The cross-examiner asked him whether Rattan Singh to whom he tendered the notice was present in Court or not. He replied that Rattan Singh was not present. The Munsif did not make a note in his deposition that the respondent was present at the time. But it is clear from his judgment that the respondent was in fact present at that time. The Munsif should have made a note in his deposition to that effect.