MADHAV VISHNU JOSHI Vs. SHRIRAM MAHADEV KULKARNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a tenant's Petition challenging the Judgment of the Appellate Court dated 29-8-1990 allowing the Appeal filed by the landlord against the Order of the trial Court in R.C.S. No.612/1983 dismissing the suit filed by the landlord.

(2.) THE landlord had sought decree of eviction against the tenant on the ground of arrears of rent. The landlord issued notice dated 18-6-1983 to the tenant demanding arrears of rent for the period from June, 1982 to May, 1983. The tenant refused to accept the notice. The landlord on 26-8-1983 issued notice terminating tenancy of the Petitioner. The trial Court dismissed the suit of the landlord holding that the landlord has not proved that the notice dated 18-6-1983 was served on the tenant. The Appellate Court reversed the finding recorded by the trial Court in the suit. Shri More, the learned Counsel appearing for Petitioner urged before me that Appellate Court committed an error in disturbing the finding of the trial Court on the question of service of notice. He urged that the finding had been recorded by the trial Court after appreciating the evidence of the postman. It is to be seen that the postman made endorsement on the cover of the letter that the tenant refused to accept the notice. The Appellate Court has observed that the trial Court rejected the testimony of the postman that he had tendered packet to the tenant who refused to accept it. After appreciating the evidence on record, the Appellate Court held that from the deposition of the postman it is clear that the packet was tendered to the tenant who refused to accept. The Appellate Court has further held that the endorsement made by the postman has presumtive value and that the burden was on the tenant to prove that the notice was not tendered to him. After referring to the deposition of the postman no fault can be found with finding of the Appellate Court. I find that the finding recorded by the Appellate Court that the notice was tendered to the tenant by the postman who refused to accept it is perfectly correct.

(3.) MR .More then urged that the Petitioner had tendered an amount of Rs.279/- within one month of the notice dated 18.6.1983 and therefore it cannot be said that he did not make payment of the amount claimed in the plaint. However, it is to be seen that by notice on amount of Rs.284/- was claimed towards the rent whereas Money Order in the amount of Rs.279/- was sent. Therefore, the tenant did not tender entire amount of arrears. In this view of the matter, therefore, this contention urged by Mr.More also does not have any substance.