Service of rent notice must be proved; "not claimed" and certificate of posting did not establish due service.

Service of rent demand notice is a condition precedent to eviction for default under rent control law. A postal cover returned with the endorsement "not claimed" is not equivalent to "refused" and does not, by itself, justify a presumption of due service. The presumptions under the Transfer of Property Act, the General Clauses Act and the Evidence Act are rebuttable, and where the tenant on oath denies receipt and that denial remains unshaken in cross-examination, the presumption stands rebutted unless the landlord proves actual service by further evidence. The same position applies to notices sent under certificate of posting, which only shows dispatch, not delivery. The notices were not proved duly served, and the appellate court's finding was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the suit notices were duly served on the tenant so as to attract eviction for default in payment of rent under the rent control law.

Analysis: Service of notice is a condition precedent for proceeding on the ground of default. A cover returned with the endorsement "not claimed" is not equivalent to an endorsement of "refused", and by itself does not justify a legal presumption of due service. The statutory presumptions under the Transfer of Property Act, the General Clauses Act and the Evidence Act are rebuttable. Where the tenant denies receipt of notice on oath and the denial is not shaken in cross-examination, the presumption stands rebutted unless the landlord adduces further evidence to prove actual service. The same principle applies to notices said to have been sent under certificate of posting, because that mode only shows that an article was handed over to the post office for delivery and does not by itself prove delivery to the addressee.

Conclusion: The notices were not proved to have been duly served on the tenant; the finding of the appellate court was upheld and the challenge failed.

---