KRISHNA BEHARILAL Vs. HARIRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff -landlord whose suit for ejectment was dismissed by the lower appellate Court.

(2.) THE facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal may briefly be stated thus. The defendant Chaturbhuj took along with a room on rent from the plaintiff on the rent of Rs. 40/ - per month. The defendant having fallen in arrears of rent, a notice was served on him on 12 -9 -1955 calling upon him to vacate the premises before 15 -10 -1955.

(3.) IT was contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the notice was not served on Chaturbhuj personally but that his son Hariram received it. The learned counsel contended that the use of the words "upon him" in S. 4 -A of the Accommodation Control Act indicates that notice of demand should be served personally upon the tenant. In a case governed by Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act it was held by their Lordships of the Privy Council, in Hari Har Benerjee vs. Ram sahai Roy (AIR 1918 P.C. 102) that vicarious delivery of the notice at the residence of the tenant is sufficient. The fact that Chaturbhuj and his son Hariram were living in the same premises is not disputed. They were as a matter of fact both sued as defendants in the present suit. By service of a notice upon the tenant what is meant is that the notice should actually reach his hands. If an adult male member of the family accepts service of the notice, it can be presumed that the notice reached the addressee. To insist upon personal service on the tenant would require an addition of the word "personally" before the word "upon him" in S. 4 -A of the Accommodation Control Act. It is not possible by a process of interpretation to introduce a change in the law of such vital character.