MADAN AND CO Vs. WAZIR JAI VEER CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point canvassed before me in this second appeal by Mr.R.P. Bakshi is regarding service of notice. His contention is that notice was required to be served through registered post, that being the only mode of service recognised by law, service by affixing notice on the outer door of the tenant's premises is not valid service of notice. That being so, the suit of the plaintiff was liable to be dismissed and the Courts below having passed a decree holding that the service by affixing notice is valid, is, therefore liable to be set aside.

(2.) Mr. Bakshi has drawn my attention to the provisions of Rent Control Act which provides that no amount shall be deemed to be in arrears unless the landlord on the rent becoming due services a notice in writing through post office under a registered cover on the tenant to pay or deposit the arrears within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of such notice and the tenant falis to pay or deposit the said arrears within the specified period. The contention, on the basis of this provision embodied in the Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, is that the only mode prescribed for serving notice on the tenant for payment of arrears of rent is notice in writing through post office under a registered cover. No provision is made for service of notice in any other manner, therefore service by affixation is not valid. On this principle he submits that no notice under law was given to the tenant-appellant. No arrears could be deemed to be outstanding against the tenant and he was not liable to be evicted for having committed default in making the payment of rent to the landlord.

(3.) It appears that a suit for eviction was filed against the appellant on 17-6-1977 on the ground that from 1-4-1976 onwards tenant has stopped making the payment of rent. Notice is said to have been served on the appellant on 25-11-1976. Despite service of notice, it is contended that the tenant has committed three defaults of two months each within a period of eighteen months. The respondent-plaintiff appears to have issued a notice through registered post on 7-12-1976 on the appellant. The said notice was returned to the respondent with the endorsement that the tenant had left without address and the registered notice was delivered back to the sendor-respondent. On 9-12-1976 copy of the notice is said to have been pasted on one of the doors of the demised premises in presence of two witnesses of the locality. The defendant has controverted the facts stated in the plaint and has stated that he had left temporarily for treatment outside Jammu City and plaintiff had sent notice on wrong address. Service by affixing notice on the demised premises is assailed on the basis of provisions of the Rent Control Act. The tenant has also denied having committed defaults as alleged by the plaintiff.