Presumption of service and slum area eviction rules: registered notice to the correct address and execution permission under the Slum Act.

A suit for eviction filed before an area is declared a slum area remains maintainable under Section 22 of the Slum Act, because prior permission is required at the stage of execution of the decree, not for institution of the suit; the note states that the decree may be executed only after such permission is obtained. Service of notice under Section 12(2) of the Rent Act is treated as proved when the notice is sent by registered post and certificate of posting to the correct address, because statutory presumptions of service arise under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act, and a bare denial of receipt does not rebut them.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a suit for eviction instituted before declaration of the area as a slum area remained maintainable under Section 22 of the Slum Act and whether prior permission was required for institution or only for execution of the decree; (ii) whether notice under Section 12(2) of the Rent Act was duly served when sent by registered post and under certificate of posting to the correct address and the tenant gave only a bare denial of receipt.

Issue (i): whether a suit for eviction instituted before declaration of the area as a slum area remained maintainable under Section 22 of the Slum Act and whether prior permission was required for institution or only for execution of the decree

Analysis: Section 22 of the Slum Act bars institution of a suit after the commencement of the Act in relation to premises in a slum area, but the statutory text also separately regulates execution of decrees. Where the suit was instituted before the declaration of the area as a slum area, the suit could proceed and a decree could be passed. The requirement of previous permission applies at the stage of execution of the decree, not to the maintainability of the already instituted suit.

Conclusion: The suit was maintainable, and the decree could be executed only after obtaining permission from the competent authority under Section 22 of the Slum Act.

Issue (ii): whether notice under Section 12(2) of the Rent Act was duly served when sent by registered post and under certificate of posting to the correct address and the tenant gave only a bare denial of receipt

Analysis: Once notice is shown to have been sent by registered post and by certificate of posting to the correct address, the statutory presumptions under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act arise. Those presumptions are rebuttable, but a mere bald denial of receipt is insufficient. The evidence showed dispatch to the correct address, the respondents admitted that the address was theirs and that they ordinarily received correspondence there, and no effective rebuttal evidence was led. The requirement of examining the postman was not treated as indispensable on these facts.

Conclusion: Service of notice under Section 12(2) of the Rent Act was validly proved and the contrary finding was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded, the concurrent findings against the applicant were set aside, and the eviction decree was restored, while its execution remained subject to prior permission under the Slum Act.

Ratio Decidendi: A notice sent by registered post to the correct address gives rise to a statutory presumption of service under the General Clauses Act and the Evidence Act, which cannot be displaced by a bare denial, and a pre-declaration eviction suit concerning slum premises remains maintainable though execution of the decree requires prior permission.

---