SHYAM SUNDER KUER Vs. JUGAL KISHORE SINGH YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant and the appeal arises out of a suit for eviction of a monthly tenant from a house on the grounds that he had defaulted in making payment of the rent and that the house was required for the personal necessity of the plaintiff. The trial court decreed the suit. The court of appeal below, though it held that the house was acquired for the personal necessity of the plaintiff, dismissed the suit as service of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was not proved.

(2.) The only point to be considered is, whether the plaintiff has discharged the onus that lay on her in regard to the service of notice determining the tenancy before bringing the present suit. Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act says that the landlord will send a notice by post to the party or tender or deliver personally to such party the same. Under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, when a letter is properly addressed and is put into the post with pre -paid postage, or, if it is posted by registered post, that would be sufficient to show that it had been sent by post. There is a legal presumption that a letter so posted would reach the destination and the addressee. In that way, in this case, the plaintiff discharged her onus. The court below has not Kept itself apprised of this position. In the case of Saligram Rai Chunilal Bahadur and Co. v. Abdul Gani and Ors. A.I.R. 1953 Assam 206. It was observed that there was no obligation on the part of the plaintiff to prove the service of notice, if he sends by post a letter properly addressed. In the case of Bachhchallal v. Lachman and Anr. A.I.R. 1938 Alld. 388 also it has been laid down that a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, sent by Registered post, gave rise to the presumption that it was served upon the other side. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mangilat v. Sugan Chand Rathi also supports the appellant's contention. In that view of the matter, the conclusion of the court below that the plaintiff had not proved that she had given notice to the defendant determining the tenancy cannot be upheld.

(3.) In the result, this appeal is allowed, and the Judgment and decree of the lower appellate court are modified to the extent that the plaintiff's suit is decreed for eviction of the defendant on the ground of personal necessity of the house. In view of the circumstances of the case, the parties will bear their own costs in this Court.