Statutory tenant protection and ejectment notice service: non-compliance with deposit duties and valid certificate-of-posting service sustained eviction.

A tenant claiming protection from eviction under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act had to comply with the statutory deposit obligations in sections 17(1) and 17(2); non-compliance and remaining rent arrears defeated the claim to protection under section 17(4). On ejectment notice, service under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was not invalid merely because the notice was sent by certificate of posting rather than registered post. The court treated service at the correct address as sufficient on the evidence, with the presumption of service remaining rebuttable. The eviction decree was therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a defaulting tenant could claim protection against eviction under section 17(4) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act without complying with sections 17(1) and 17(2) of that Act. (ii) Whether an ejectment notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was invalid unless sent by registered post, or whether service by certificate of posting was legally sufficient.

Issue (i): Whether a defaulting tenant could claim protection against eviction under section 17(4) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act without complying with sections 17(1) and 17(2) of that Act.

Analysis: The protection under section 17(4) was treated as dependent on the tenant's compliance with the deposit obligations imposed by sections 17(1) and 17(2). The record showed non-compliance with those provisions and some arrears of rent remaining undeposited. Since the tenant had not satisfied the statutory conditions, the plea for protection against eviction could not be accepted.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellant and in favour of the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether an ejectment notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was invalid unless sent by registered post, or whether service by certificate of posting was legally sufficient.

Analysis: Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was read as requiring notice to be sent by post, but not as insisting on registered post alone. Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 was held to create a presumption of service in cases of registered post, while notice sent under certificate of posting could still attract a presumption under section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, subject to rebuttal on the facts. On the evidence, the courts below were justified in finding due service at the correct address, and no ground existed to interfere with that finding.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellant and in favour of the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The eviction decree was sustained because the tenant failed to secure statutory protection and the ejectment notice was held to be duly served.

Ratio Decidendi: A tenant seeking protection from eviction must satisfy the statutory deposit conditions attached to that protection, and a notice required to be sent by post is not invalid merely because it is sent under certificate of posting rather than registered post.

---