PARMANAND Vs. ANANDI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendants' second appeal arising out of a suit for eviction from certain promises described in para-1 of the plaint.

(2.) SMT. Anandi Bai, the plaintiff-respondent, had purchased the property in question from one Govindram on 4 8 66. Defendant Dharamdas was the tenant of Govindram and in consequence of the purchase of the property by SMT. Anandi Bai he became her tenant. The plaintiff sued the defendant Dharamdas and sought the relief of eviction on two grounds: (1) that of default, and (2) that the property was bona fide and reasonably required by the plaintiff for residence. Prior to the filing of the suit the tenancy was terminated by the plaintiff by a notice dated 25-1-67. It may be mentioned that during the pendency of the suit Dharamdas died and his legal representatives Permanand and Jhamandas were brought on record in his place.

(3.) THE next question that calls for consideration is whether the notice could have been delivered to Permanand, Dharamdas's son instead of Dharamdas himself and that too at Parmanand's shop and not at the house of Dharamdas. Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act reads as follows : "s. 106. Duration of certain leases in absence of written contract or local usage - In the absence of a contract or local law or usage to the contrary, a lease of immoveable property for agricultural or manufacturing purposes shall be deemed to be a lease from year to year, terminable, on the part of either lessor or lessee, by six months' notice expiring with the end of a year of the tenancy ; and a lease of immoveable property for any other purpose shall be deemed to be a lease from month to month, terminable, on the part of either lessor or lessee, by fifteen days' notice expiring with the end of a month of the tenancy. Every notice under this section must be in writing signed by or on behalf of the person giving it, and either be sent by post to the party who is intended to be bound by it or be tendered or delivered personally to such party, or to one of his family or servants at his residence, or, (if such tender or delivery is not practicable) affixed to a conspicuous part of the property. " THEre are two modes in which a notice terminating the tenancy can be served; the first one is that of sending it to the party by post, and the second mode is by tendering or delivering personally to such party or to one of his family or servant at his residence or if such tender or delivery is not possible, affixing to a conspicuous part of the property. In other words, according to the plain language of this section it may be sent by post to the party or may be tendered or delivered personally in the manner indicated in the section. It is not right, in my opinion, to read the requirements of the second mode in to the first mode of sending the notice by post. THE section does not lay down how the postman is to deliver the notice to the addressee. That is a matter that will be governed by the relevant rules of the Post Office as to how letters or registered letters are to be delivered by the postmen. Any way, from the statement of Kanhaiya Lal it is clear that he first went to the house of Dharamdas and offered the registered letter to him and it was at the behest of none other than Dharamdas that he carried the registered letter to his son Permanand at his shop and the same was delivered to Permanand. THErefore, in such a case it cannot be held that the notice was not sent by post to Dharmdas or for that matter not tendered to him by the postman. It was undoubtedly tendered to him by the postman, but the actual delivery was made by the postman to Dharamdas's son on his request. THEre is, therefore, no flaw in the mode of service of notice through post. Even in Harihar Banerji vs. Ramshashi Ray (2) their Lordships, inter alia, observed : "but it is an entire mistake to suppose that the addressee must sign the receipt for a registered letter himself, or that he cannot do so by the hand of another person, or that if another person does sign it on the addressee's behalf the presumption is that it never was delivered to the addressee himself mediately or immediately. For instance, if a servant in the addressee's house saw a notice handed in by the postman carried to the addressee, and handed to him that servant could certify that it was delivered to his master and could, if requested by the master, sign the receipt on the latter's behalf though he was not the agent of the master authorised to take delivery on his, the master's behalf. " In view of the above observations when the registered letter was first tendered to Dharmdas and at his behest was carried to Permanand and then it was accepted by him the letter shall be deemed to have been delivered to Dharamdas. Learned counsel wanted to rely on the following observations in this judgment : "the personal tender or delivery of the notice may take place anywhere ; the vicarious tender or delivery must take place at the residence of the person intended to be bound by the notice. " THEse observations, in my humble view, relate to the second mode of service namely, that of personal delivery through means other than that of sending the notice by post. In the present case as the registered notice was sent by post at the correct address of Dharamdas and was eventually delivered to his son Permanand and which was, as per the postman, according to the behest of Dharamdas the service of the notice was good.