<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2003 (2) TMI 552 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304112</link>
    <description>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&#039;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.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Sep 2022 15:43:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=690136" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (2) TMI 552 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304112</link>
      <description>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&#039;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.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304112</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>