KULKARNI PATTERNS PVT. LTD. AND ORS. versus VASANT BABURAO ASHTEKAR AND ORS.

Citation: [1992] 1 S.C.R. 227 · Decided: 17-01-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.M. KASLIWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

_,.l 
KULKARNI PATIERNS PVT. LTD. AND ORS. 
v. 
V ASANT BABURAO . ASHTEKAR AND ORS. 
JANUARY 17, 1992 
[N. M. KASLIWAL AND R. C. PA1NAIK, JJ.] 
Transfer of Property Act -Section 106-Termination notice-Sent by 
posf-Service-l'resumption and rebuJta~When arises. 
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947-
Section 13 (1) (b)--App/icability of. 
The RlSpondents-landlords filed a suit for possession or the suit 
premises against the appellants on the ground or default in payment or 
rent, amongst others. The 7th Additional Small Causes Judge, dismissed 
the suit holding that the service or notice dated 7-8-1980 on the 
defendants terminating the tenancy was not proved, even though one 
out of the three acknowledgements due, had been received duly signed. 
As regards the question or default in payment or rent, the learned Judge 
took the view that the case did not fall under Section 12(J)(b) or the Act, 
as the defendants had paid Rs. 55,800 on 16.1.1984 and thereafter made 
regular payment or Rs. 600 every month. On appeal by the respondent· 
landlords, the learned Additional District Judge reversed the findings or 
the trial Court and decreed the suit. The learned Additional District 
Judge held that when the notices are sent by 
registered post, it is 
presuaied to have been served and mere denial by the tenants had no 
value, unless they proved some extraordinary happenings or events 
which prevented following or usual course of business. On the question 
or default in payment or rent the learned Judge held that as the 
defendants did not deposit the entire arrears on the first date or hearing 
•nd did not deposit the further rent during the pendency or the appeal, 
they persistently committed defaults during the pendency or the suit and 
also the appeal. The appellants thereupon filed a writ petition in the 
High Court challenging the validity of the aforesaid order or the learned 
Additional District Judge. The High Court dismissed the writ petition 
and affirmed the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge. 
Hence this appeal by the appellants, after obtaining special leave. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
227 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
228 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1992] l S.C.R. 
A 
HELD : The notice under Section 106 T.P. Act can be sent by post 
'-' 
to the party who is intended to be bound by it. Thus the notice sent by 
registered post in the name or the defendant company who is the tenant 
is fully in accordance with the requirement or section 106 of the 
Transfer of Property Act. [232H-233A] 
B 
The plaintiffs had sent a copy or the notice to all the three 
defendants by registered post. Three postal receipts Exhs. 52, 53 and 54 
have been med in the present case and Exh. 51, one acknowledgement 
receipt. As regards Exh. St, the defendants No.2 has appeared in the 
witness box and has denied his signatures. However, it has not been 
shown that this acknowledgement receipt was related to which or the 
C three notices sent vide postal receipts Exhs. 52, 53 and 54. [231E-F] 
Tbe rebuttal, if any, made by defendant No. 2 can be related only 
with regard to Exh. SI for one notice but not with regard to all the three 
notices sent by registered post vide Exhs. S2 to S4. [232D] 
D 
The 
service or notice shall have to be presumed so far as 
defendent company is concerned and there is no 
rebuttal to such 
• 
presumption by the defendant appellants. [232E] 
The finding recorded by the learned Additional District Judge 
that the defendants were defaulter in the payment ohent as full amount 
E 
or rent was not paid or deposited on the first date or hearing and no rent 
was paid month by month during the pendency of the appeal could not 
be assailed. [2338] 
F 
Green View Radio Service v. Laxmibai Ramji and Anr., (1990] 4 SCC 
497, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4134 of 
1991. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.8.1991 of the Bombay High 
G Comt in Writ Petition No. 3580 of 1991. 
J.P. Pathak and P.H. Parekh for the Appellants. 
A.M. Khanwilkar and S.K. Parshankar. for the Respondents. 
H 
The Judgment of the Comt was delivered by 
( 
( 
KULKARNI PATIERNS v. VASANTBABURAO [KASLIWAL, J.] 
229 
y 
KASUW AL, J. This appeal by grant of special leave is directed A 
against the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 30th August, 1991 
in a suit for possession under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House 
Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.