https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198751 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. en-us Mon, 08 Mar 1976 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Feb 2018 12:24:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198751 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 08 Mar 1976 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198751