Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: intimation unclaimed in Krishna Ramchandra Jadhav @ Yadav, ... vs Smt. Shankari B. Ajimal on 26 July, 2005Matching Fragments
2. The petitioners failed to deposit the rent regularly and were in arrears since 1st October, 1975. After due notice, the respondent-landlady filed the suit in the Trial Court. After considering the evidence led by the parties, the Trial Court held that the petitioner-tenant was a willful defaulter, but dismissed the suit by holding that there was no valid notice under Section 12(2) of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Boarding House Rates (Control) Act, 1987 (for short "The Bombay Rent Act").
3. All other grounds were also dismissed. In the present case, the landlady-respondent had adopted three modes of services to serve the legal notice. Firstly, the notice dated 1st April, 1976, was sent by registered post acknowledgement due (RP/AD); secondly, the notice was sent Under Certificate of Posting (UCP) and thirdly, one copy of the notice was pasted on the outer door of the suit premises on 2/5/1976. As per the evidence of the respondent-landlady DW1, the registered notice was sent to the petitioner on a given address which returned with postal remarks "Unclaimed". There is an additional remark stating "Intimation" and there was a third postal remark "Not claimed" dated 3rd April, 1976. The said packet was returned with unsigned acknowledgement which shows that the said packet was not received by the defendant-petitioner.
4. So far as the packet which was sent by UCP, had not returned back. The service by pasting on the outer door of the premises was supported by DW1. Admittedly, no Postman was examined in this matter. The Trial Court, therefore, rejected the suit of the landlady for want of service of valid demand notice.
5. The Appellate Court in the Appeal, based on the same material and evidence on the record, quashed and set aside the said order passed by the Trial Court and decreed the suit, as prayed, basically by holding that there was a valid termination of tenancy by the said notice as the packet had returned with the endorsements "unclaimed", "intimation" and "not claimed"