Special rent control eviction procedure dispenses with section 106 notice and allows presumed service on refused registered post.

A special rent control statute was treated as a complete and self-contained eviction code, so prior notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was not a prerequisite to eviction proceedings under that Act. In ordinary civil suits for ejectment, tenancy termination under section 106 may still be required, but the statutory machinery displaced that need here. A registered notice returned with the endorsement "refused" also raised a presumption of service under the Evidence Act, and that presumption was not rebutted on the facts. The objections on notice and service were therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether eviction proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 required prior notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. (ii) Whether a notice sent by registered post and returned with the endorsement "refused" could be treated as duly served without examining the postman.

Issue (i): Whether eviction proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 required prior notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.

Analysis: The special rent control statute was treated as providing a complete and self-contained procedure for eviction of tenants. The Court distinguished cases involving ordinary civil suits for ejectment, where termination of tenancy under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act remained necessary, from proceedings under the Act, where the statutory machinery itself governed eviction.

Conclusion: Prior notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was not required for eviction under the Act, and the contention of the appellant failed.

Issue (ii): Whether a notice sent by registered post and returned with the endorsement "refused" could be treated as duly served without examining the postman.

Analysis: The Court accepted that a registered letter bearing an endorsement of refusal ordinarily raises a presumption of service under section 114 of the Evidence Act. It also accepted that the presumption can be rebutted by evidence showing non-service or denial of refusal. On the facts found by the High Court, the appellant's denial did not displace the presumption in a manner that would justify interference.

Conclusion: The notice could be treated as duly served, and the appellant's objection on service also failed.

Final Conclusion: The special rent control remedy was held to be self-contained, and the challenge based on absence of notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, as well as the challenge to service of notice, was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute provides a complete eviction procedure, compliance with section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is not a prerequisite to eviction under that statute, and a registered notice returned with the endorsement "refused" may be presumed served unless that presumption is rebutted on the evidence.

---