Mahipal Sharma v. Counsel for

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a tenant of a property bearing Municipal No.230 situated at Lohiya Nagar, Ghaziabad and respondents are landlords of the aforementioned accommodation. Respondents/landlords instituted a SCC Suit No.5 of 2022 against the petitioner/ tenant for arrears of rent and ejectment. In the plaint, it has been alleged that tenancy of petitioner commences with effect from

1.5.1999 on monthly of Rs.2300/- besides taxes. Petitioner/defendant/ tenant filed a written statement aforementioned SCC Suit denying the plaint allegations. In the written statement, it has been alleged that tenancy of the accommodation was @ 1150/- per month and there was no liability for payment of taxes upon the tenant. Respondents/landlords replication aforementioned SCC suit. The Judge Small Cause vide judgement and decree dated 11.8.2005 dismissed the aforementioned SCC Suit. Against the judgement and decree dated 11.8.2005 passed by the Judge Small Cause, a revision under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 2 A227 No. 7548 of 2021 1887 was filed by the respondents/ plaintiffs/ landlords which was registered as SCC Revision No.380 of 2005. The aforementioned revision was allowed vide judgement dated 17.9.2014 and matter was remanded back before the trial Court to decide the SCC Suit afresh. After the remand order passed by the revisoinal Court, petitioner/defendant/ tenant filed list of documents (Paper Nos.112 Ga to 134 Ga) as well as additional affidavit (Paper No.110 Ga). Judge Small Cause vide judgement and decree dated 5.11.2018 decreed the plaintiffs' suit for arrears of rent and ejectment. Against the judgement and decree dated

5.11.2018 passed by Judge Small Cause, revision under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 filed by petitioner/ defendant / tenant was registered as SCC Revision No.82 of 2018. During pendency of the aforementioned revision application (16 Ga) was filed by the petitioner/ defendant/ tenant, which was allowed by the revisional Court vide judgement dated 15.11.2019. During pendency of the revision, petitioner / defendant/ tenant was depositing monthly rent @ Rs.3500/- per month in compliance of the conditional interim order passed by the revisional Court. The aforementioned revision was head finally and dismissed by the judgement dated 27.10.2021. Hence this petition for the following relief: "It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the eviction of the petitioner from the property in question in pursuance of the impugned judgment and order dated 27.10.2021 passed by Additional District Judge Fast Track Court -II, Ghaziabad in SCC Revision No.82 of2018 (Annexure-22 to the accompanying petition) and the judgment and order dated5.11.2018 passed by Judge Small Causes Court, Ghaziabad in SCC suit no.5 of 2002 (Annexure-16 to the accompanying petition), during the pendency of the instant petition before this Hon'ble Court ; or such other and further order be passed as is expedient in the interest of justice."

3. This Court entertained in the matter on 6.1.2022 and granted 3 A227 No. 7548 of 2021 conditional interim order, which is as under: "Order on the Petition The submission of Mr. Pankaj Agarwal, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the notice to quit under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was not served upon the tenants and the finding about service has been recorded ignoring from consideration material evidence and on a manifest illegal premise. It is submitted that the Courts below have committed a manifest error in ignoring from consideration Paper No.49-Ga and drawing perverse conclusions from it. Admit. Mr. P.K. Jain, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ashish Kumar Singh, learned Counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos.1/1, 1/2 and 2. He is granted four weeks' time to file a counter affidavit. List for orders on 04.02.2022 along with a report regarding status of pleadings. Order on the Stay Application Issue notice. Until further order, the petitioner shall not be evicted from the demised premises provided he deposits with the Trial Court the entire decretal amount, together with damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month regularly. The first deposit of enhanced damages at the rate of Rs.10,000/- shall be made by the petitioner with the Trial Court on or before 25.01.2022 and all subsequent damages due shall be deposited at the same rate on the 25th day of each succeeding month, if it does not fall on a holiday. In the event, it falls on a holiday, the deposit shall be made on the next working day. All sums of money deposited, whether towards the decretal amount or damages, by the petitioners with the Trial Court shall be released in favour of the landlord-respondent without asking him to furnish any security. In the event of default, this interim order shall stand automatically vacated."

4. In pursuance of the order dated 6.1.2022, parties have exchanged their 4 A227 No. 7548 of 2021 pleadings.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned judgement / order have been passed in illegal and arbitrary manner, as such, the same are liable to be set aside. He further submitted that the Judge Small Cause has drawn the assumption of service of alleged notice dated 14.5.2001 upon the tenant on surmises and conjectures, as such, the judgement and decree passed by the Judge Small Cause cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He further submitted that in absence of any acknowledgement A.D. proving the due service of notice upon the tenant, the presumption of service cannot be drawn. He further submitted that there is no material on record which could demonstrate that service of notice was ever affected upon the petitioner / tenant or petitioner / tenant has ever refused to accept the notice. He further submitted that finding recorded on Issue Nos.1 & 8 regarding applicability of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 and rate of rent is perverse. He further submitted that paper no.49 Ga (copy of nagar nigam extract), which is a public document, has been ignored while passing the impugned judgement / order. He further submitted that before the revisional Court application no.16 Ga was filed but revisional Court has failed to examine those documents in proper manner. He further submitted that issue regarding material alteration has not been decided in proper manner, as such, the impugned judgement cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He further placed reliance upon the following judgements in support of his argument: I. AIR 1989 SC 1433 Gujarat Electricity Board v. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani. II. 2017(121) ALR 345 Lalla Mistri v. Ashok Kumar Agrawal.

6. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents submitted that both the Courts have decided the dispute in proper manner considering the evidence on record, as such, no interference is required against the impugned judgements/ orders passed 5 A227 No. 7548 of 2021 by the Small Cause Court/ Revisional Court. He further submitted that there was proper service of notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act upon the tenant. He further submitted that according to the provisions contained under Section 27 of General Clauses Act and Rule 195 of Indian Post Office Rules, there is no illegality in the impugned judgement passed by the Judge Small Cause as well as revisional Court. He finally submitted that no interference is required and petition filed by the petitioner / tenant should be dismissed. He further placed reliance upon the following judgements on the point of service of notice as well as on the rate of rent: "i. (2017) 11 ADJ 592, Ashok Kumar Kaushik vs. O.P. Shah and Another. ii. (2019) 3 ARC 599, Om Prakash vs. Amarjeet Singh and three others. iii. (1989) 0 AIR SC 630, Ms. / Madan and Co., Vs. Wazir Javir Chand. iv. (2017) 2 ARC 554, Sardar Pradyumn Singh vs. Anees Fatima and Others. v. (2022) Supreme (ALL) 1171, Ram Babu vs. Raj Kumar Singh. vi. (2012) 3 ARC 689, Prem Kumar Gupta vs. Kishor Kumar Gupta and Another. vii. (2017) 1 ARC 48, Om Prakash Sahu vs. Gaurav Srivastava. viii. (2012) ARC 354, Ashok Kumar Jain vs. Buddhi Prakash.

7. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

8. There is no dispute about the fact that SCC Suit filed by the respondent/ landlords was decreed by the Judge Small Cause and decree has been maintained in revision under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887.

9. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter perusal of the 9 issues framed in the SCC Suit will be relevant, which are as under: 1- क्या वाद्षस्त सम्पि्त पर यू.पी. एक्ट 13 सन 1972 के ्ऺािवधान लागू होता है, अथवा नहीं ? 2- क्या वादीगण ्षारा ्ऺितवादी को भेजी गयी नोिटस िदनांक 08.03.2001 6 A227 No. 7548 of 2021 तामील हुई, यिद नहीं तो ्ऺभाव ? 3- क्या ्ऺितवादी ्षारा वाद्षस्त सम्पि्त सं० बी-230, लोिहयानगर, गािजयाबाद का कोई िकराया देने में चूक की गयी है, यिद हाँ तो ्ऺभाव ? 4-क्या ्ऺितवादी ्षारा वादीगण की अनुमित के िबना िववािदत सम्पि्त में सारवान पिरवतर्न व अितिर्व िनमार्ण िकया गया है, यिद हाँ तो ्ऺभाव ? 5-क्या ्ऺितवादी िकराये हक में वाटर टैक्स, सीवर टैक्स देने का िजम्मेदार है, यिद हाँ तो ्ऺभाव ? 6-क्या ्ऺितवादी िवशेष हजार् मु० 10,000/-रू० पाने का अिधकारी है ? 7-वादीगण िकस अनुतोष को पाने का अिधकारी है ? 8- वाद्षस्त भवन के िकराये की दर क्या थी ? 9-क्या वादीगण ्ऺितवादी से कोई हजार् इस्तेमाल ्ऺाप्त करने के अिधकारी है, यिद हाँ तो िकस दर से ?

10. Perusal of the finding recorded by the Judge Small Cause on issue no.2 regarding service of notice dated 8.3.2001 will be also relevant, which are as under: "वाद िबन्दु सख्या 2 इस आशय का अिभिनधार्िरत िकया गया है िक "क्या वादीगण ्षारा ्ऺितवादी को भेजी गयी नोिटस िदनांक 08.03.01 तामील हुई, यिद नहीं तो ्ऺभाव ?" वाद प्ऴ के अवलोकन से यह िविदत होता है िक उसमें िदनांक 08.03.2001 के प्ाात 14.05.2001 को भी ्ऺितवादी को वादी ्षारा िविधक नोिटस िदये जाने का कथन िकया गया है। अतः उपरो्व वाद िबन्दु सं0 2 में सुधार करते हुए वाद िबन्दु सं० 2 िनम्नवत िवरिचत िकया जाता है। क्या वादीगण ्षारा ्ऺितवादी को भेजी गयी नोिटस िदनांक 08.03.2001 एवं 14.05.2001 तामील हुई, यिद नहीं तो ्ऺभाव ? वादी ्षारा वाद प्ऴ में कहा गया है िक ्ऺितवादी िदनांक 01.5.99 से बाद्षस्त मकान में 2300/रू० माहवार पर िकराएदार है। िकराए पर देते समय उसने 2 माह का िकराया 4600/रू० िसक्युिरटी के तौर पर िदया था। उ्व 4600/ रू0 को माह मई व जून 1999 के िकराए में एडजस्ट िकया गया। िदनांक 01.7.99 से उसपर िकराया आिद बकाया हो गया. िजसे कई बार मांगने के बाबजूद ्ऺितवादी ने नहीं िदया। तब उसके बाद िदनांक 08.3.01 को रिजस्टडर् डाक व यूपीसी के जिरए धारा 106 टीपीएक्ट की नोिटस ्ऺितवादी को भेजी गई, िजसे जानबुझकर डािकए से िमलकर ्ऺितवादी ने लौटा िदया। तब पुनः िदनांक 14.5.01 को जिरए अिधव्वा उसे रिजस्टडर् डाक व यू० पी० सी० से िविधक नोिटस अंतगर्त धारा 106 टी पी एक्ट भेजी गई, जो वापस नही आई। उ्व नोिटस की एक ्ऺित िदनांक 14.5.01 को वाद्षस्त मकान के दरवाजे पर भी चस्पा की गई। इस ्ऺकार उ्व नोिटस का तािमला िदनांक 16.5.01 को उपधािरत माना जाएगा। प्ऴावली पर वादी ्षारा उ्व नोिटस िदनांिकत 14.5.01 की ्ऺित 27 ग डाक रसीद 28 ग व यूपी सी सिटकफके ट 29 ग दािखल िकया गया है, िजसे वादी सं० 1 ने अपने सशपथ बयान में सािबत करते हुए कहा है िक रिजस््िी व यूपीसी डाक से ्ऺेिषत नोिटस िबना तािमल वादीगण को ्ऺाप्त नही हुआ। वादी अिध० ्षारा धारा 114 भारतीय साष्य अिध० व धारा 27 जनरल क्लाजेज एक्ट का आधार लेते हुए तकर् िकया गया िक यिद कोई ्ऺप्ऴ ्ऺाप्तकतार् को पंजीकृ त डाक के माध्यम से उसके सही पते पर भेजा जाता है, तो ्ऺाप्तकतार् पर उसके तािमल होने की उपधारणा की जाती है। वादी की ओर से ्ऺस्तुत िविध ्िवस्था 2015 (126) आर डी 98, 2017 (2) ए आर सी 153, 2013 (2) ए डब्लू सी 1143 में मा० उच्च न्यायालय इला० ने यह अवधािरत िकया है िक the cumulative effect of provision of the Indian evidence act and sec 27 of the general clauses act is that a letter/notice sent by registered post to the person concerned at the proper address shall be deemed to be 7 A227 No. 7548 of 2021 served upon him in due course unless contrary is proved. ्ऺितवादी महीपाल शमार् ने अपनी ्ऺितपरी्षा के पृ्ष 58 ग/3 पर कहा है िक 27 ग पर जो डाक पता िलखा है, वह सही पता है। इन पिरिस्थितयों में उपरो्व िविध ्िवस्था के आधार पर नोिटस ्ऺितवादी पर तािमल हुआ माना जाएगा। उल्लेखनीय है िक उपरो्व ्िवस्था के अनुसार ्ऺितवादी ने नोिटस तािमल होने के िवपरीत कोई ऐसा साष्य नही िदया है, िजससे िवपरीत अवधारणा की जा सके । वाद िवन्दु सं० 2 तदनुसार वादी के प्ष में तथा ्ऺितवादी के िवरू्ध िनणर्त िकया जाता है।"

11. In view of the finding of fact recorded by the Judge Small Cause regarding service of notice dated 8.3.2001 upon the tenant in the light of the provision contained under Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act and Section 27 of General Clauses Act, there is no further scope of interference by this Court regarding service of notice upon tenant and the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted.

12. The Judge Small Cause has decided other issues in the light of the evidence adduced by the parties recording finding of fact that provision of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 are no applicable and there was default in payment of rent by the tenant.

13. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is required in the matter.

14. The petition is dismissed.

15. No order as to costs. October 8, 2025 Rameez (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) RAMEEZ AHMED High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a tenant of a property bearing Municipal No.230 situated at Lohiya Nagar, Ghaziabad and respondents are landlords of the aforementioned accommodation. Respondents/landlords instituted a SCC Suit No.5 of 2022 against the petitioner/ tenant for arrears of rent and ejectment. In the plaint, it has been alleged that tenancy of petitioner commences with effect from

1.5.1999 on monthly of Rs.2300/- besides taxes. Petitioner/defendant/ tenant filed a written statement aforementioned SCC Suit denying the plaint allegations. In the written statement, it has been alleged that tenancy of the accommodation was @ 1150/- per month and there was no liability for payment of taxes upon the tenant. Respondents/landlords replication aforementioned SCC suit. The Judge Small Cause vide judgement and decree dated 11.8.2005 dismissed the aforementioned SCC Suit. Against the judgement and decree dated 11.8.2005 passed by the Judge Small Cause, a revision under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 2 A227 No. 7548 of 2021 1887 was filed by the respondents/ plaintiffs/ landlords which was registered as SCC Revision No.380 of 2005. The aforementioned revision was allowed vide judgement dated 17.9.2014 and matter was remanded back before the trial Court to decide the SCC Suit afresh. After the remand order passed by the revisoinal Court, petitioner/defendant/ tenant filed list of documents (Paper Nos.112 Ga to 134 Ga) as well as additional affidavit (Paper No.110 Ga). Judge Small Cause vide judgement and decree dated 5.11.2018 decreed the plaintiffs' suit for arrears of rent and ejectment. Against the judgement and decree dated

5.11.2018 passed by Judge Small Cause, revision under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 filed by petitioner/ defendant / tenant was registered as SCC Revision No.82 of 2018. During pendency of the aforementioned revision application (16 Ga) was filed by the petitioner/ defendant/ tenant, which was allowed by the revisional Court vide judgement dated 15.11.2019. During pendency of the revision, petitioner / defendant/ tenant was depositing monthly rent @ Rs.3500/- per month in compliance of the conditional interim order passed by the revisional Court. The aforementioned revision was head finally and dismissed by the judgement dated 27.10.2021. Hence this petition for the following relief: "It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the eviction of the petitioner from the property in question in pursuance of the impugned judgment and order dated 27.10.2021 passed by Additional District Judge Fast Track Court -II, Ghaziabad in SCC Revision No.82 of2018 (Annexure-22 to the accompanying petition) and the judgment and order dated5.11.2018 passed by Judge Small Causes Court, Ghaziabad in SCC suit no.5 of 2002 (Annexure-16 to the accompanying petition), during the pendency of the instant petition before this Hon'ble Court ; or such other and further order be passed as is expedient in the interest of justice."

3. This Court entertained in the matter on 6.1.2022 and granted 3 A227 No. 7548 of 2021 conditional interim order, which is as under: "Order on the Petition The submission of Mr. Pankaj Agarwal, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the notice to quit under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was not served upon the tenants and the finding about service has been recorded ignoring from consideration material evidence and on a manifest illegal premise. It is submitted that the Courts below have committed a manifest error in ignoring from consideration Paper No.49-Ga and drawing perverse conclusions from it. Admit. Mr. P.K. Jain, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ashish Kumar Singh, learned Counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos.1/1, 1/2 and 2. He is granted four weeks' time to file a counter affidavit. List for orders on 04.02.2022 along with a report regarding status of pleadings. Order on the Stay Application Issue notice. Until further order, the petitioner shall not be evicted from the demised premises provided he deposits with the Trial Court the entire decretal amount, together with damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month regularly. The first deposit of enhanced damages at the rate of Rs.10,000/- shall be made by the petitioner with the Trial Court on or before 25.01.2022 and all subsequent damages due shall be deposited at the same rate on the 25th day of each succeeding month, if it does not fall on a holiday. In the event, it falls on a holiday, the deposit shall be made on the next working day. All sums of money deposited, whether towards the decretal amount or damages, by the petitioners with the Trial Court shall be released in favour of the landlord-respondent without asking him to furnish any security. In the event of default, this interim order shall stand automatically vacated."

4. In pursuance of the order dated 6.1.2022, parties have exchanged their 4 A227 No. 7548 of 2021 pleadings.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned judgement / order have been passed in illegal and arbitrary manner, as such, the same are liable to be set aside. He further submitted that the Judge Small Cause has drawn the assumption of service of alleged notice dated 14.5.2001 upon the tenant on surmises and conjectures, as such, the judgement and decree passed by the Judge Small Cause cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He further submitted that in absence of any acknowledgement A.D. proving the due service of notice upon the tenant, the presumption of service cannot be drawn. He further submitted that there is no material on record which could demonstrate that service of notice was ever affected upon the petitioner / tenant or petitioner / tenant has ever refused to accept the notice. He further submitted that finding recorded on Issue Nos.1 & 8 regarding applicability of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 and rate of rent is perverse. He further submitted that paper no.49 Ga (copy of nagar nigam extract), which is a public document, has been ignored while passing the impugned judgement / order. He further submitted that before the revisional Court application no.16 Ga was filed but revisional Court has failed to examine those documents in proper manner. He further submitted that issue regarding material alteration has not been decided in proper manner, as such, the impugned judgement cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He further placed reliance upon the following judgements in support of his argument: I. AIR 1989 SC 1433 Gujarat Electricity Board v. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani. II. 2017(121) ALR 345 Lalla Mistri v. Ashok Kumar Agrawal.

6. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents submitted that both the Courts have decided the dispute in proper manner considering the evidence on record, as such, no interference is required against the impugned judgements/ orders passed 5 A227 No. 7548 of 2021 by the Small Cause Court/ Revisional Court. He further submitted that there was proper service of notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act upon the tenant. He further submitted that according to the provisions contained under Section 27 of General Clauses Act and Rule 195 of Indian Post Office Rules, there is no illegality in the impugned judgement passed by the Judge Small Cause as well as revisional Court. He finally submitted that no interference is required and petition filed by the petitioner / tenant should be dismissed. He further placed reliance upon the following judgements on the point of service of notice as well as on the rate of rent: "i. (2017) 11 ADJ 592, Ashok Kumar Kaushik vs. O.P. Shah and Another. ii. (2019) 3 ARC 599, Om Prakash vs. Amarjeet Singh and three others. iii. (1989) 0 AIR SC 630, Ms. / Madan and Co., Vs. Wazir Javir Chand. iv. (2017) 2 ARC 554, Sardar Pradyumn Singh vs. Anees Fatima and Others. v. (2022) Supreme (ALL) 1171, Ram Babu vs. Raj Kumar Singh. vi. (2012) 3 ARC 689, Prem Kumar Gupta vs. Kishor Kumar Gupta and Another. vii. (2017) 1 ARC 48, Om Prakash Sahu vs. Gaurav Srivastava. viii. (2012) ARC 354, Ashok Kumar Jain vs. Buddhi Prakash.

7. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

8. There is no dispute about the fact that SCC Suit filed by the respondent/ landlords was decreed by the Judge Small Cause and decree has been maintained in revision under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887.

9. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter perusal of the 9 issues framed in the SCC Suit will be relevant, which are as under: 1- क्या वाद्षस्त सम्पि्त पर यू.पी. एक्ट 13 सन 1972 के ्ऺािवधान लागू होता है, अथवा नहीं ? 2- क्या वादीगण ्षारा ्ऺितवादी को भेजी गयी नोिटस िदनांक 08.03.2001 6 A227 No. 7548 of 2021 तामील हुई, यिद नहीं तो ्ऺभाव ? 3- क्या ्ऺितवादी ्षारा वाद्षस्त सम्पि्त सं० बी-230, लोिहयानगर, गािजयाबाद का कोई िकराया देने में चूक की गयी है, यिद हाँ तो ्ऺभाव ? 4-क्या ्ऺितवादी ्षारा वादीगण की अनुमित के िबना िववािदत सम्पि्त में सारवान पिरवतर्न व अितिर्व िनमार्ण िकया गया है, यिद हाँ तो ्ऺभाव ? 5-क्या ्ऺितवादी िकराये हक में वाटर टैक्स, सीवर टैक्स देने का िजम्मेदार है, यिद हाँ तो ्ऺभाव ? 6-क्या ्ऺितवादी िवशेष हजार् मु० 10,000/-रू० पाने का अिधकारी है ? 7-वादीगण िकस अनुतोष को पाने का अिधकारी है ? 8- वाद्षस्त भवन के िकराये की दर क्या थी ? 9-क्या वादीगण ्ऺितवादी से कोई हजार् इस्तेमाल ्ऺाप्त करने के अिधकारी है, यिद हाँ तो िकस दर से ?

10. Perusal of the finding recorded by the Judge Small Cause on issue no.2 regarding service of notice dated 8.3.2001 will be also relevant, which are as under: "वाद िबन्दु सख्या 2 इस आशय का अिभिनधार्िरत िकया गया है िक "क्या वादीगण ्षारा ्ऺितवादी को भेजी गयी नोिटस िदनांक 08.03.01 तामील हुई, यिद नहीं तो ्ऺभाव ?" वाद प्ऴ के अवलोकन से यह िविदत होता है िक उसमें िदनांक 08.03.2001 के प्ाात 14.05.2001 को भी ्ऺितवादी को वादी ्षारा िविधक नोिटस िदये जाने का कथन िकया गया है। अतः उपरो्व वाद िबन्दु सं0 2 में सुधार करते हुए वाद िबन्दु सं० 2 िनम्नवत िवरिचत िकया जाता है। क्या वादीगण ्षारा ्ऺितवादी को भेजी गयी नोिटस िदनांक 08.03.2001 एवं 14.05.2001 तामील हुई, यिद नहीं तो ्ऺभाव ? वादी ्षारा वाद प्ऴ में कहा गया है िक ्ऺितवादी िदनांक 01.5.99 से बाद्षस्त मकान में 2300/रू० माहवार पर िकराएदार है। िकराए पर देते समय उसने 2 माह का िकराया 4600/रू० िसक्युिरटी के तौर पर िदया था। उ्व 4600/ रू0 को माह मई व जून 1999 के िकराए में एडजस्ट िकया गया। िदनांक 01.7.99 से उसपर िकराया आिद बकाया हो गया. िजसे कई बार मांगने के बाबजूद ्ऺितवादी ने नहीं िदया। तब उसके बाद िदनांक 08.3.01 को रिजस्टडर् डाक व यूपीसी के जिरए धारा 106 टीपीएक्ट की नोिटस ्ऺितवादी को भेजी गई, िजसे जानबुझकर डािकए से िमलकर ्ऺितवादी ने लौटा िदया। तब पुनः िदनांक 14.5.01 को जिरए अिधव्वा उसे रिजस्टडर् डाक व यू० पी० सी० से िविधक नोिटस अंतगर्त धारा 106 टी पी एक्ट भेजी गई, जो वापस नही आई। उ्व नोिटस की एक ्ऺित िदनांक 14.5.01 को वाद्षस्त मकान के दरवाजे पर भी चस्पा की गई। इस ्ऺकार उ्व नोिटस का तािमला िदनांक 16.5.01 को उपधािरत माना जाएगा। प्ऴावली पर वादी ्षारा उ्व नोिटस िदनांिकत 14.5.01 की ्ऺित 27 ग डाक रसीद 28 ग व यूपी सी सिटकफके ट 29 ग दािखल िकया गया है, िजसे वादी सं० 1 ने अपने सशपथ बयान में सािबत करते हुए कहा है िक रिजस््िी व यूपीसी डाक से ्ऺेिषत नोिटस िबना तािमल वादीगण को ्ऺाप्त नही हुआ। वादी अिध० ्षारा धारा 114 भारतीय साष्य अिध० व धारा 27 जनरल क्लाजेज एक्ट का आधार लेते हुए तकर् िकया गया िक यिद कोई ्ऺप्ऴ ्ऺाप्तकतार् को पंजीकृ त डाक के माध्यम से उसके सही पते पर भेजा जाता है, तो ्ऺाप्तकतार् पर उसके तािमल होने की उपधारणा की जाती है। वादी की ओर से ्ऺस्तुत िविध ्िवस्था 2015 (126) आर डी 98, 2017 (2) ए आर सी 153, 2013 (2) ए डब्लू सी 1143 में मा० उच्च न्यायालय इला० ने यह अवधािरत िकया है िक the cumulative effect of provision of the Indian evidence act and sec 27 of the general clauses act is that a letter/notice sent by registered post to the person concerned at the proper address shall be deemed to be 7 A227 No. 7548 of 2021 served upon him in due course unless contrary is proved. ्ऺितवादी महीपाल शमार् ने अपनी ्ऺितपरी्षा के पृ्ष 58 ग/3 पर कहा है िक 27 ग पर जो डाक पता िलखा है, वह सही पता है। इन पिरिस्थितयों में उपरो्व िविध ्िवस्था के आधार पर नोिटस ्ऺितवादी पर तािमल हुआ माना जाएगा। उल्लेखनीय है िक उपरो्व ्िवस्था के अनुसार ्ऺितवादी ने नोिटस तािमल होने के िवपरीत कोई ऐसा साष्य नही िदया है, िजससे िवपरीत अवधारणा की जा सके । वाद िवन्दु सं० 2 तदनुसार वादी के प्ष में तथा ्ऺितवादी के िवरू्ध िनणर्त िकया जाता है।"

11. In view of the finding of fact recorded by the Judge Small Cause regarding service of notice dated 8.3.2001 upon the tenant in the light of the provision contained under Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act and Section 27 of General Clauses Act, there is no further scope of interference by this Court regarding service of notice upon tenant and the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted.

12. The Judge Small Cause has decided other issues in the light of the evidence adduced by the parties recording finding of fact that provision of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 are no applicable and there was default in payment of rent by the tenant.

13. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is required in the matter.

14. The petition is dismissed.

15. No order as to costs. October 8, 2025 Rameez (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) RAMEEZ AHMED High Court of Judicature at Allahabad