Registered-post notice and statutory presumption of service upheld; bare denial and absence from station did not rebut it.
Service of a rent-demand notice sent by registered post to the correct address was held valid where the postal endorsement showed it was not claimed, because the statutory presumption of service applied. Affixation was also permissible once personal tender or effective postal service was not practicable. The tenant's bare denial and claimed absence from station were insufficient to rebut the presumption; credible evidence was required to show non-service or improbability of service. The concurrent findings on service were supported by the record and were not perverse, so the challenge to the eviction decree failed.
Issues: (i) Whether notice of demand under Section 12(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 could be validly served by registered post and whether affixation was permissible; (ii) whether the presumption of service arising from postal endorsement could be rebutted on the tenant's denial and alleged absence from station; and (iii) whether the concurrent findings on service of notice were perverse.
Issue (i): Whether notice of demand under Section 12(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 could be validly served by registered post and whether affixation was permissible.
Analysis: Section 12(2) makes service of notice in the manner provided by Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 a condition precedent to a suit for eviction on the ground of default. Section 106 permits service by post or personal tender and, where such service is not practicable, by affixation to a conspicuous part of the property. A postal endorsement showing that the letter was not claimed at the correct address gave rise to the statutory presumption of service, and once actual service by post or personal tender was not practicable, affixation was also legally permissible.
Conclusion: Valid service by registered post and, in the facts, valid affixation were held to be established.
Issue (ii): Whether the presumption of service arising from postal endorsement could be rebutted on the tenant's denial and alleged absence from station.
Analysis: The presumption under Section 28 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904 and the allied evidentiary presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is rebuttable, but bare denial on oath is insufficient. The tenant must place credible material showing non-service or circumstances making service improbable. Mere absence from the premises does not rebut the presumption, because a tenant is expected to make arrangements for receipt of correspondence at the address.
Conclusion: The presumption of service was not rebutted.
Issue (iii): Whether the concurrent findings on service of notice were perverse.
Analysis: The concurrent findings were supported by the postal endorsement, the statutory presumption of service, and the evidence regarding attempted service. No material was shown to render those findings unreasonable or contrary to the record.
Conclusion: The findings were not perverse and did not warrant interference.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the eviction decree failed because service of notice was held valid and the concurrent factual findings were sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: Where notice is sent to the correct address by registered post and returned with a not claimed or similar endorsement, the statutory presumption of service applies and can be rebutted only by credible evidence; mere denial or absence from station does not suffice, and affixation is permissible when personal or postal service is not practicable.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
