LexHARCHARAN SINGH versus SHIV RANI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c 0 E F G H 962 HARCHARAN SINGH v. smv RANI AND ORS. February 20, 1981 [V. D. TULZAPURKAR, D. A. DESAI AND A. P. SEN, JJ.J Service by refusal-Notice den1anding arrears and seeking eviction is sen' by registered post but refused by the tenant-Whether the tenant could be imputed rhe knowledge of the contents thereof so that upon his failure to com~ ply with the notice the tenant could be said to have committed wilful default in payment of rent-U.P. Cantonment (Control of Rent and Eviction), (Central Act X), 1952, section 14(1) scope of-General Clauses Act 1897, section 27, Jndtan Evidence Act, section 114. The appellant was inducted in the year 1964 as a tenant of the suit premises on an yearly rental payable by December 31, every year. Since the appellant did not pay the rent for the years 1965, 1966 a combined notice dated November 9, 1966 demanding payment of arrears and seeking ejectment on tern1ination of tenancy, was sent by registered post by the respondents. The appellant refused to receive the notice on November 10, 1966. On his failure to comply with the requisitions contained in the notice, the respondents filed a suit against the appe11ant seeking eviction as well a'i recovery of rents and mesne profits. Having lost before the trial court and the first appellate court, the respon· dents came up before the High Court in second appeal. The High Court accepted the findin of fact recorded by the first appellate court that there was i:tervice of the notice on the appellant by refusal and held that when notice was tendered to the tenant and when the latter refused to accept the same know- ledge of the contents of the notice must be imputed to him. The High Court allowed the landlords' appeal and granted three months time to the appellant to vacate the shop. Hence, the tenant's appeal after obtaining special leave from this Court. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: (By majority) Pu Tulzapurkar, J. (On behalf of A. P. Sen, J. and himself). 1 : t. The presumptiom that are raised under section 27 of the General Chtuseli .Act, 1897 and section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, make it clear that, when service is effected by refusal of a postal communication, the addressee must be imputed with the knowledge of the contents thereof. [971 E-Fl 1 :2. Before the knowledge of the contents of the notice could be imputed1 it is not necessary tlmt the sealed envelope must be opened and read by the addres•ee or when the addressee happens to be an illiterate pef'on the contents ihould be read over to him by the post·man or someone else. Such things do ·not occur when the addressee is determined to decline to accept the sealed <0nvelopo. [971 D-EJ ... > ---.\ HARCHARAN SINGH V, SHIVRANI 963 Van1an Vithal Kulkarni and Ors. v. Khanderao Ram Rao Sholapurkar. A A.I.R. 1935 Bom. 247, explained and dissented from. Mahboob Bi v. Alva/a Lachmiah, A.I.R. 1964 A.P. 324, held inapplicable. Sltri J.Vath and another v. Smt. Sartuwati Devi Jaiswal, A.I.R. 1964 All. 52; Fanni Lal v. Smt. Chironja, (1972) Allahabad Law Journal 499; Ganga Ram v. Smt. Phulwati, (1970) Allahabad Law Journal 336 (FB); Kodali Bapayya B and Ors. v. Yadavalli Venkataratnam and Ors., A.I.R. 1953 Mad. 884, approved. Harihar Banerji and Ors. v. Ramshashi Roy and Ors., A.I.R. 1918 P.C. 102, referred to. 2: I. The suit under section 14(1) of the U.P. Cantonment (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act (Central Act X of 1952), in the instant case was main- tainabae. Under section 14(1) of the Central Act, which in pari materia with 0 section 3(1) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, permission of the District Magistrate was required if the landlord sought evic- tion of the tenant on any ground other than those specified in clauses (a) to (f) and not when it was sought on any of the grounds specified in clauses (a) to (f). [973 E-F] B/wgwa11 Dass v. Paras Nath, [1969] 2 SCR 297, followed. D 2 : 2. All the courts rightly dealt with the matter as being governed by the U.P. Cantonments (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, X of 1952--a Central Act and not by U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 much less by the later U.P. (Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972. [966 E-FJ Per Desai, J. Contra. !. Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 is a socially beneficient statute and should be construed according to well
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.