Registered notice refusal can prove knowledge of contents and support wilful default in rent-control eviction disputes.

Refusal of a duly addressed and registered demand notice raises a rebuttable presumption of effective service, including knowledge of its contents, so actual proof that the tenant opened or read the envelope is unnecessary; on that basis, wilful default in payment of rent could be established. The rent-control bar was construed so that prior permission of the District Magistrate was not required where eviction was sought on a specified statutory ground, making the suit maintainable without such permission. A dissent would have treated refusal as insufficient to prove knowledge and would not have applied the arrears ground to a yearly tenancy.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether refusal of a registered demand notice by a tenant permits a presumption that he had knowledge of its contents so as to constitute wilful default on non-payment of rent; (ii) whether prior permission of the District Magistrate was necessary before filing the eviction suit under the governing rent-control provision.

Issue (i): Whether refusal of a registered demand notice by a tenant permits a presumption that he had knowledge of its contents so as to constitute wilful default on non-payment of rent.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and Illustration (f) to Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 raises a rebuttable presumption of proper service when a notice is duly addressed, prepaid, and posted by registered post. Where the envelope is actually tendered and refused, the presumption of effective service extends to the contents of the notice as well, and it is not necessary to prove that the envelope was opened or read by the addressee. The Court rejected the view that refusal alone, without proof of actual reading, could not amount to service.

Conclusion: Yes. Refusal of the registered notice imputed knowledge of its contents and supported a finding of wilful default against the tenant.

Issue (ii): Whether prior permission of the District Magistrate was necessary before filing the eviction suit under the governing rent-control provision.

Analysis: The eviction bar in Section 14(1) of the U.P. Cantonment (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1952 was read consistently with the corresponding earlier provision considered in precedent. On that construction, permission of the District Magistrate was required only when eviction was sought on grounds outside the specified clauses, and not when the suit was founded on one of the enumerated statutory grounds. The Court held that the suit was therefore maintainable without such permission.

Conclusion: No. Prior permission of the District Magistrate was not required for a suit founded on the specified statutory ground.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, the eviction decree was sustained, and the tenant's challenge to both service of notice and maintainability was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Properly addressed registered notice, when tendered and refused, gives rise to a presumption of effective service including knowledge of its contents, and a rent-control suit based on a specified statutory ground does not require prior permission where the statute so construed does not impose that condition.

Concurring/Dissenting Opinion: Desai, J. dissented. The dissent held that the statutory ground of arrears was not attracted to a yearly tenancy and that refusal of a registered notice should not, in the social conditions of India, be treated as proof of knowledge of its contents. On that view, the appeal should have been allowed and the eviction suit dismissed.

---