Presumption of service by registered post stands when a refused notice is properly addressed and returned endorsed refused.

Properly addressed, prepaid statutory notices sent by registered post may be treated as duly served when the envelope is returned with an endorsement of refusal. Personal service on the tenant was held not to be mandatory, and the service requirement under the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act could be satisfied by deemed or presumed service under the General Clauses Act and the Evidence Act. The landlord was not required in every case to examine the postman or produce further proof of refusal. On the stated facts, a rebuttable presumption of due service arose and operated in favour of the landlord.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a notice of demand under the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, when combined with a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, must be served personally on the tenant; (ii) whether the landlord must prove the endorsement of refusal by examining the postman or other evidence where the registered notice is returned with that endorsement; (iii) whether, on the facts, a presumption of service could be drawn in favour of the landlord.

Issue (i): Whether a notice of demand under the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, when combined with a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, must be served personally on the tenant.

Analysis: Service by registered post to the correct address was treated as a legally recognised mode of service. The expression requiring service of a notice of demand was held wide enough to include service deemed under the General Clauses Act and service presumed under the Evidence Act. Personal acceptance by the tenant was not treated as essential, and the statutory object would be defeated if refusal of registered mail could prevent service.

Conclusion: No. Personal service was not mandatory, and deemed or presumed service was sufficient.

Issue (ii): Whether the landlord must prove the endorsement of refusal by examining the postman or other evidence where the registered notice is returned with that endorsement.

Analysis: The postal statutes and rules showed that endorsements made in the course of postal duty were official acts. The Court treated an endorsement of refusal on a registered article as supporting a presumption of regularity and did not accept that examination of the postman was indispensable in every case.

Conclusion: No. The landlord was not bound to examine the postman or lead such additional evidence in every case.

Issue (iii): Whether, on the facts, a presumption of service could be drawn in favour of the landlord.

Analysis: The Court held that once a notice was properly addressed, prepaid, and posted by registered post, and the envelope came back with an endorsement of refusal, a presumption of due service arose under the General Clauses Act and could also be supported by the Evidence Act. The endorsement strengthened rather than weakened the inference that service had been attempted and refused.

Conclusion: Yes. The presumption of service was rightly drawn, and it operated in favour of the landlord.

Final Conclusion: The legal effect of the decision was that a registered notice of demand, properly addressed and returned with a refusal endorsement, can be treated as duly served without proof of personal delivery, and the combined notice under both enactments is effective in law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a notice required by statute is properly addressed, prepaid, and sent by registered post, a returned endorsement of refusal supports a rebuttable presumption of due service, and personal acceptance by the addressee is not essential unless the presumption is displaced.

---