SOHAN LAL PALIWAL Vs. AMBA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved of the order dated 25.04.2019, passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, rejecting petitioner's appeal against the judgment and certificate of recovery dated 26.09.2016, the petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, enshrined under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Before adverting to the questions raised by the petitioner, it would be appropriate to glance through factual canvas, which unfolds as under:-

(3.) The Tribunal, upon analysis of the ocular and oral evidence tendered by rival parties and after threadbare discussion of the questions involved, held issues Nos.1 and 3 against the tenant (petitioner) and in favour of the landlord (respondent). Considering the evidence, the Tribunal reached to a categorical conclusion that the landlord had sent a notice dated 09.02.2010, vide speed post, which was received at the address of tenant. The Tribunal found it to be sufficient compliance of the provisions contained in Proviso to Section 9(a) of the Act of 2001. It was inter alia observed that though the provision speaks of "registered post acknowledgment due" and not "speed post", but the service by speed post cannot be treated to be a non-compliance. Since the factum of sending the notice-Ex.1 was proved by the landlord, the Tribunal considered other evidence such as postal receipt, reply of the post office, proof of delivery, to reach to a conclusion that the notice was delivered on 10.02.2010, while drawing a presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act read with Section 27 of the General Clauses Act. A categorical finding came to be recorded by the Tribunal that the notice has reached its addressee, namely, Sohanlal S/o Girdharilal - the tenant.