Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.21 seconds)Section 116 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
Jodharam, S/O Ranaji Ramji vs Smt. Jagnmathamma, W/O Late S. ... on 29 November, 2006
21. In the instant case though the defendant has
disputed the service of the notice which was sent under UCP, but
the reasons best known to him has not examined the postal
authorities to show that the notice which was sent through UCP
was not served on him. Though the learned counsel for the
defendant while cross-examination of the PW1 has suggested
about the objection for examination of the postal authority on
behalf of the defendant for which she has stated that she has no
objection. If really the notice which was sent through UCP was
not served on the defendant he would have examined the postal
authorities to show that notice which was sent through UCP was
served on the defendant. Even he has not denied the address as
shown in the cause title and the notice copy. Thus, one thing is
clear that the notice which was sent to the correct address of the
defendant as shown in the notice copy and the address shown in
the cause title. Ex.P5 clearly reflects that the petitioner has
terminated the tenancy of the defendant through notice. So, one
thing is clear that the notice was served on the defendant and
his tenancy has been terminated as per Ex.P5. So, this court has
drawn its attention on the decision reported in ILR 2007 KAR
21 (SCCH-8) S.C.No.1925/2011
379 in between Jodharam Vs. Smt.Jagnmathamma, which
reads like thus;
Section 27 in The General Clauses Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
1