SATISH KUMAR Vs. RAM PIARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the decree and judgment dated 5 -6 -1993 of Additional District Judge (I), Shimla, whereby the appeal of appellant -defendant Satish Kumar was dismissed and the decree and judgment dated 24 -8 -1990 of Sub -Judge 1st Class (2), Shimla, was affirmed. The Sub -Judge 1st Class had decreed the suit of the respondents -plaintiffs Ram Piari and four others, for possession of the premises consisting of four rooms, laterine and bath room in Prithvi Chand building standing on Khasra No. 343, Khata/Khatauni No 3/3 situated at Kasumpti Bazar, Shimla, fully detailed and described in Para 1 of the plaint (hereinafter called the premises in dispute).

(2.) Admittedly, the premises in dispute have been in possession of Satish Kumar as a tenant under Prithvi Chand owner landlord, the predecessor -in -interest of respondents -defendants. The suit was instituted by Prithvi Chand but during its pendency in the trial Court, he died and the respondents -plaintiffs were brought on record. Before instituting the suit, Prithvi Chand had sent notice dated 30 -6 -1987 under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act to Satish Kumar by registered post terminating his tenancy and requiring him to handover the vacant possession on 31 -7 -1987.

(3.) Satish Kumar in his written statement took the stand that, "......The tenancy has not been terminated, No notice as alleged was received by the defendant. As the tenancy has not been terminated, the suit is not maintainable. In any case, the alleged notice is illegal". Further, in his statement made in the Court, Satish Kumar had simply denied the receipt of notice Ex P -l, though he had admitted that the address given therein was his correct address. On the other hand, Suresh Kumar (PW 1), one of the respondents -plaintiffs, placed on record copy of notice Ex P -l as well as postal receipt Ex. P -2 whereby it was sent to Satish Kumar by registered post. He has also produced postal certificate Ex P -3 wherein the postal authorities have stated that registered letter No. 8001 dated 30 -6 -1987 was delivered on 9 -7 -1987 to Satish Kumar at his address given therein. On this evidence, both the Courts have come to the conclusion that notice Ex. P -l is presumed to have been duly served upon Satish Kumar as provided under section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act read with section 27 of the General Clauses Act