JUDGMENT
(1) [ED.FACTS.: Appellants 2 and 3 are Chairman & Director of Appellant. No. 1. Landlord- Respdt. sued them for eviction under Bombay Rent Act. Before seeing they were sent notice by regd. post A.D. Only A.D. of appellant came back and it was not clear who had received it. Eviction was claimed on the ground of non-payment of rent under Bombay Rent Act. Trial Court held that landlord had failed to prove signature of appellant 1 or 2 on the A.D. and thus not established its service. It further held that even if service is presumed, landlord had not proved case on merits. In appeal, Adj held that notices were sent by Regd. post and mere denial by tenant of his signature was not enough. Defts. admitted the correctness of address on the regd. notices and presumption of service arises u/s 27, Gen. Clauses Act & S. 114, Evidence Act. Adj also held that there was default in paying arrears and granted decree. Tenants filed W. P. in High Court which was dismissed. They appealed to Supreme Court. After detailing above, Judgment is :-
(2) It has been contended on behalf of the appellants that the Adj was wrong in drawing presumption of service of notice in the facts of the present case. It was submitted that the plaintiff initially stated that the acknowledgement receipt Exhibit 51 contained the signatures of the Deft. 3, but subsequently admitted that it contained the signature of the deft. 2. It was further argued that deft. 2 had appeared in the witness box and clearly denied his signatures on Ex. 51. It was thus contended that the presumtion of service of notice was rebutted and thereafter the burden lay on the plaintiffs to prove the service of notice by examining the postman or by other evidence and plaintiffs having failed to do so, the service of notice having not been established, the suit was liable to be dismissed. Reliance in support of the above contention was placed on decision of this court to which one of us was party in Green View Radio Service vs. Lakshmibal . Reliance was placed on the following observations made in the above case. “IN this connection, we may also point put that the provisions of Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act require that notice to quit has to be sent either by post to the party or be tendered or delivered personally to such party or one of his family members or servants at his residence or if such tender or delivery is not practicable, affixed to a conspicuous part of the property. The service is complete when the notice is sent by post. In the present case as pointed out earlier, the notice was sent by the plaintiff’ s advocate by registered post A.D. The acknowledgment signed by the party was received by the advocate of the plaintiff. Thus in our view the presumption of service of a letter sent by registered post can be rebutted by the addressee by appearing as witness and stating that he never received such letter. If the A.D receipt contains the signatures of addressee himself and addressee as witness states that he never recieved such letter and A.D. does not bear his signature such statement of the addressee if believed then it would be a sufficient rebuttal of the presumtion drawn against him. The burden would then shift on the plaintiff who wants to rely on such presumption to satisfy the court by leading oral or documentary evidence to prove the service of such letter on the addressee. This rebuttal by the defendant of the presumption drawn against him would of course depend on the veracity of the statement. The court in the facts and circumstances of a case may not consider such denial by the defendant as truthful and in that case such denial would not be sufficient. But if there is nothing to disbelieve the statement of defendant then it would be sufficient rebuttal of the presumption of service of letter or notice sent to him by registered post.”
(3) In the present case the plaintiff had sent a copy of the notice to all the three defendants by registered post. Three postal receipts Ex. 52, 53 and 54 have been filed in the present case and Ex. 51, one A.D. receipt. As regards Ex. 51, the deft 2 has appeared in the witness box and has denied his signatures. However it has not been shown that this A.D. receipt was related to which of the three notices sent vide postal receipts Ex. 52. 53 and 54. The plaintiffs have clearly proved the three notices were sent by the registered post and which is clearly borne out from the three postal receipt?. Admittedly the premises was taken on rent in the name of the deft. 1 namely Kulkarni Patterps Pvt. Ltd. and it is proved that one of the notices by registered post was also sent to the company. It has been admitted by the deft. in his statement that the notice was sent on the correct address. The deft. 2 in his statement has nowhere stated that no notice had been received by the company. The only denial is in respect of the A.D. receipt Ex. 51 and the only inference which could legitimately be drawn is that in respect of one notice, it was not proved as to who acknowledged the receipt of the notice. We do not approve following statement of law made by the ADJ. ” the evidence of the defendant did not show any extraordinary happening or the events which prevented the following of usual course of business and thus, his mere denial has no value”. However, in the present case three notices were sent by registered post and one of which was sent in the name of the deft. company who was the tenant, presumption can legitimately be drawn the notice dated 7.8.1983 had been served on the company. There is no rebuttal on behalf of the deft. as regards the notice served on the company and in the facts and circumstances of the present case we hold that notice dated 7.8.1980 sent by registered post was served on the deft. company. In Green View Radio Service (supra) it was held that the A.D. receipt contained the signature of addressee himself and the addressee as a witness stated that he never received such letter and the A.D. did not bear his signature and such statement of the addressee if believed then it would be a sufficient rebuttal of the presumption drawn against him. The burden will then shift to the plaintiff who wants to rely on such presumption to satisfy the court by leading oral or documentary evidence to prove the service of such letter on the addressee. Even applying this statement of law in the facts of the present case, the rebuttal, if any, made by the deft. 2 can be related only with regard to Ex. 51 for one notice but not with regard to all the three notices sent by registered post vide Ex. 52 to 54. Thus in the facts of the case in hand before us we are fully convinced that the service of notice shall have to be presumed so far as deft. company is concerned and there is no rebuttal to such presumption by the defendant appellants.
(4) The requirement of sending notice u/S. 12 of the Act is to be done in the manner prescribed under para 2 of S. 106 of the T.P.A. which reads :- "EVERY notice under this section must be in writing signed by or no 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 practical) affixed to a conspicuous part of the property". (5) The reading of the above provision clearly shows that notice can be sent by post to the party who is intended to be bound by it. Thus the notice sent by the registered post in the name of the deft. company who is the tenant is fully in accordance with requirement of S. 106 of the T.P.A. So far as the finding recorded by the ADJ. that the defendants were defaulter in the payment of rent and full amount of rent was not paid or deposited on the first date of hearing and no rent was paid month by month during the pendency of the appeal could not be assailed by the learned counsel for the appellants. Thus, the learned A.D.J. as well as the High Court were right in passing a decree for possession u/S. 12 of the Act. As a result of the above discussion and findings recorded by us, we find no force in this appeal and the same is dismissed with costs.