Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Mr. M. Mishra. learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite party on the other hand contends that the deffence of the defendant having been struck off and he having not come to deny himself the fact that no notice was struck off and he having not come to deny himself the fact that no notice was served on him. There was no rebuttal of the presumption as is available under Section 114. Illustration (f) of the Evidence Act so far as the service on the basis of certificate of posting is concerned. It is apparent from the certificate of posting that the correct address of the defendant was recorded. He then contends that (he contention of the defendant that the notice was not correctly addressed was based on the registration slip which did not mention the address except the district. He then contends that the notice was produced and proved that the notice was correctly addressed. Then again, he also pointed out that a reply was obtained from the Postal Department that the particular registered post article was delivered to the addressee. Since the defendant did not examine himself to deny the service which he could have done despite striking off the defence. There was no rebuttal and as such, the Court had rightly presumed the service to have been effected on the basis of the notice showing correct address and the letter of the Postal Department evidencing service of the said registered article supported by certificate of posting. He then contends that the Court had come to a finding on the basis of material on record that the rent was Rs. 2.080 per month and as such, it is not within the scope and purview of Act 13 of 1972. Therefore, Act 13 of 1972 cannot be attracted. He further contends that under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, it is not necessary that there should be a four months' default. On the other hand. on account of non-payment of rent, lease could be forfeited and the lessee could be evicted. He also contends that the lease was from year to year as is evidenced from the documents produced by him and as such even on account of the efflux of time, the lease could have been determined though it has not specifically pleaded in the plaint. On these grounds, he supports the impugned order.

4. I have heard both the counsel at length.

5. It is not disputed that the defence of the defendant was struck off and that the defendant did not examine himself even on the question of notice in the witness box. Therefore, admittedly, there is no rebuttal of the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff. A notice has been proved and the notice shows the correct address of the defendant. The reliance on the registration receipt cannot clinch the issue when the notice itself gives the correct address supported by the letter of the postal department evidencing that the registered post article was duly delivered to the addressee. The absence of the production of the card cannot be fatal since it has been acknowledged by the postal department, which is also supported by the certificate of posting, which has a presumptive value under Section 114 illustration (f) of the Evidence Act. A presumption can be drawn as soon as it is proved that the notice was posted with the correct address as evidenced in the certificate of posting as well as in the notice itself, which is supported by the reply of the postal department evidencing service on the addressee. Thus, it cannot be said that the learned court below had acted illegally or with material irregularity in drawing presumption of service on the materials produced before him particularly when the defendant did not rebut the presumption by examining himself that he had never received the notice. Therefore. I do not find any infirmity in the finding with regard to service of notice.

8. In the present case, a reply from the postal department was obtained. In the said reply the postal department had affirmed after verifying its own record that the relevant article under the particular registration slip was duly served on the addressee. Apart from the acknowledgment card, the addressee is supposed to endorse signature signifying the receipt of the article in the document presented to the addressee while delivering the registered article which is maintained in the office itself. The postal department also obtains signature on the acknowledgment card signifying receipt of the article addressed to him and such acknowledgment is sent by the post to the addressee. Thus, if the postal acknowledgment card is misled. it can be ascertained by the postal department as to whether it was properly served on the addressee. Such a document being available the Court is free to accept such service.

11. Thus, when a case comes within in scope of ambit of illustration (f) of Section 114. then the same has to be read having regard to the Section 16 and Section 32(2) of the Evidence Act. The common course of service is to be presumed when the postal department acknowledges to have delivered the notice to the addressee. Registered postal receipt along with the copy of notice bearing correct address raises a presumption in the absence of return of notice that it was duly received by the addressee. Post office upholds the wholesome example in public office. It was so held in the case of Ayisabeevi and another v. Aboobacker, AIR 1971 Kar 231 and Jagat Ram Khullar and another a. Bhattu Mal. AIR 1976 Del 111. But such presumption is rebutttable. If the defendant denies the receipt of the envelope or signature, presumption is rebutted as is held in the case of Munshi Ram and another v. Shakuntata Devi, AIR 1978 J&K 31. Simple denial without reliable evidence, without further rebuttal the presumption continues as was held in Pakhar Singh v. Krishan Singh, AIR 1974 Raj 112. The presumption under Section 114 is one of fact and not of law and when defendant pledges his oath that the cover was never delivered to him, the presumption of irregularities of office business cannot be treated as rebuttal. It was so held in the case Govind Chandra Saha and another v. Dwarka Nath Patila, 20 CLJ 455 : 19 CWN 489, Ram August Tiwari and others a. Bindeshwart Tiwari and others, AIR 1972 Pat 142. In Aburubanmal v. Official Assignee 45 MLJ 817 it was held that the letter, correctly addressed and proved to have been posted and not returned by dead letter office, must be presumed to reach its destination in proper time. However, the presumption does not arise unless there is a proof of actual posting as was held in Hullas v. Allahabad Bank, AIR 1956 Cal 644.