Notice to quit and postal service must be read substantively, not defeated by technical objections or isolated descriptions.

A notice to quit should be construed as a whole and according to its substance, so a broader description identifying the entire tenancy will prevail over an isolated reference to a smaller plot where tenants knew the surrounding facts. On that approach, the notice was treated as terminating the whole holding rather than only part of it. Service was also supported by registered postal dispatch, signed receipts, one defendant's admission of receipt, and no convincing denial by the others; such evidence can satisfy the requirement of delivery under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The tenancy determination and claim to possession were therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the notice to quit was invalid because the description of the holding and the reference to a 6 cottah plot made it uncertain or confined it to only part of the tenancy; (ii) whether service of the notice to quit on the principal defendants was duly proved in law.

Issue (i): Whether the notice to quit was invalid because the description of the holding and the reference to a 6 cottah plot made it uncertain or confined it to only part of the tenancy.

Analysis: The notice had to be read as a whole and from the standpoint of tenants aware of the facts. Its earlier and dominant description identified the entire jumma held from Ramnidhi Manjhi at an annual rent of Rs. 25 and expressed the landlord's intention to recover khas possession of all the lands comprised in that jumma. The reference to 6 cottahs in the schedule did not prevail over the broader description, and the notice was not shown to have been framed fraudulently or with any intention to make it ineffective. A notice to quit is to be construed so as to give effect to its substance rather than defeat it by a technical reading.

Conclusion: The notice to quit was valid and effective to determine the tenancy of the whole holding.

Issue (ii): Whether service of the notice to quit on the principal defendants was duly proved in law.

Analysis: Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 required tender or delivery to the party to be bound or to persons standing in the relevant relationship with him, and registered dispatch with receipts signed on behalf of the addressees raised a strong presumption of delivery. The evidence showed that the notices were sent by registered post to the defendants at their addresses, receipts were obtained, one defendant admitted receipt, and there was no convincing denial by the others. In the case of joint family members and co-tenants, service on one and the proved postal delivery to the others were sufficient on the facts.

Conclusion: Service of the notice to quit was duly proved and was valid in law.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on both grounds, and the decree determining the tenancy and supporting the landlord's claim to possession was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A notice to quit must be construed as a whole and upheld where, to tenants aware of the surrounding facts, it clearly conveys termination of the entire tenancy; registered postal service supported by receipts and surrounding evidence is sufficient proof of delivery under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

---