2025 (7) TMI 1451

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a property situated at Sadabad Gate, Agra Road in Hathras hereinafter referred to as "Suit Property". The respondent took the suit property on rent at Rs.3,000/- per month, including the water tax and house tax. The said tenancy begins from the first date of the English month and ends on the last date of the same month. The tenant failed to deposit the rent for the period from 1st June 1999 to 11th September 2000, totaling to a sum of Rs.38,416/- along with Rs.3,841/- towards water tax and Rs.3,841/- towards house tax. 4.2 On the default of the respondent herein in paying the rent and other occupational charges, the appellant issued legal notices dated 12th September 2000 and 1st November 2000 through Registered A.D. Post asking the respondent to make good the default; to deposit the outstanding amount along with interest @ 10% per annum thereon; to pay expenses towards legal notice; and also to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property. 5. The proceedings before the Civil Judge, Hathras, began on 06th December 2000. Summons were issued to the respondent on 12th February 2001. No appearance was entered. On 13th April 2001, it was recorded that the service through the R....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n to put up the case next on 29th May 2007 for cross-examining PW-1. On such date no one was present on behalf of the tenant and, as such, their right to cross-examine was closed. On 8th February 2008, the landlord filed an application under Order XV Rule 5 of CPC. It was prayed that despite the passage of seven years, neither has the amount claimed been deposited nor disputed by the tenant and, therefore, the opportunity of defence to lead evidence should be struck off. This contention was accepted. Aggrieved thereby, the tenant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 for rejection of plaint which was dismissed by the Trial Court for the reason that prior orders of the Court were not being complied with qua depositing of costs etc. The case continued with the tenant neither having deposited the rent nor handed over the possession of the suit property to the landlord. 8. The suit was decreed vide order dated 27th May 2011. It was concluded with the observations that - "Therefore, keeping in view of the totality of facts as above, it is clear that the Respondent had admitted the rental property of petitioner and also admitted that the same was carrying the rent of Rs.2500/- ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....laimed'. Though it is not mentioned what 'ND' would mean but during course of argument, it is admitted that it is not delivered. 6. Hence learned counsels agree that postal authorities mention the words 'ND' and it denotes 'Not Delivered' 7. When a document was not delivered by the Postal Department and it was not on account of revisionist or that he avoided service, it could not have been said that notice was served upon defendant-revisionist. Hence, issue regarding service of notice decided against defendant- revisionist and in favour of plaintiff-respondent is patently illegal. In these circumstances, the decree of eviction could not have been passed and cannot be sustained". 12. The effect of the Trial Court order finding service to be sufficient is 'deemed service'. 13. Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1887 Hereinafter referred to as "GC Act" deals with service by post : "27. Meaning of Service by post.- Where any [Central Act] or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act authorizes or requires any document to be served by post, whether the expression "serve" or either of the expressions "give" or "send" or any other expression is used, then, unless a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Court in Greater Mohali Area Development Authority & Ors. v. Manju Jain & Ors. (2010) 9 SCC 157; Gujarat Electricity Board v. Atmaram Sungomal Posani (1989) 2 SCC 602; CIT v. V. K. Gururaj (1996) 7 SCC 275; Poonam Verma v. DDA (2007) 13 SCC 154; Sarav Investment & Financial Consultancy (P) Ltd. v. Lloyds Register of Shipping Indian Office Staff Provident Fund (2007) 14 SCC 753; Union of India v. S.P. Singh (2008) 5 SCC 438; Municipal Corpn., Ludhiana v. Inderjit Singh (2008) 13 SCC 506; and V.N. Bharat v. DDA (2008) 17 SCC 321. 15. Undisputedly, notice was sent to the respondent by Registered Post in compliance with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The High Court, as we have observed, held that since the endorsement on the notice read "ND", the notice was not delivered and, therefore, any and all proceedings arising therefrom would be bad in law and, hence, the decree of ejectment was set aside. We are of the view that the High Court was plainly in error in coming to this conclusion. The impugned order was passed without consideration of Section 27 of GC Act, which provides that if services are made through Registered Post, it is deemed to have been made in accordance....