MADAN & CO. versus WAZIR JAIVIR CHAND

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 983 · Decided: 28-11-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

MADAN & CO. 
A 
v. 
WAZIR JAIVIR CHAND 
NOVEMBER 28, 1988 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND S. RANGANATIIAN, JJ.] 
B 
Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 
1966: Section 11-'Serves a notice in writing through post'-lnter-
pretation of-Posting a pre-paid registered letter containing tenant's 
correct address-Sufficiency of. 
In November 1976, the respondent issued a notice to the appellant 
under section 11 of the J ammu & Kashmir Houses & Shops Rent Con-
trol Act, 1966 calling upon it to pay the arrears ofrent, The notiee also 
terminated the tenancy and called upo11 the appellant to vacate the 
demised premises. The notice sent by registered post was received back 
by the respondent with the endorsement "left without address, 
returned to sender". Thereupon the respondent caused a copy of the 
notice to be fixed to one of the doors of the premises in question. 
No payment of rent was however made by the appellant subsequently. 
The respondent, therefore, filed a suit in June 1977 seeking ejectment of 
the appellant on the ground of default in the payment of rent. The Trial 
Court ordered eviction. and the appellant's appeals before the District 
Judge and the High Court against the order of eviction failed. 
Before this Court the appellant contends that (1) the safeguards in 
ss. 11 and 12 of the Act are intended for the benefit and protection of the 
tenant and therefore, where the Act provides for the service of the 
notice, by post, this requirement has to be strictly complied with;.(2) 
such postal service can neither be presumed nor considered to be good 
service where the latter is returned to the sender due to non-availability 
of the addressee; (3) in the absence of any enabling provision, service by 
some other mode, such as affixture, cannot be treated as sufficient 
compliance with the statute; and (4) where a power is given to do a 
certain thing in a certain way, the thing must he done in that way or not 
at all and other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. 
Dismissing the appeal, it was, 
HELD: (I) The proviso to clause (i) of section 11(1) and_ the pro-
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
viso to section 12(3) are intended for the protection of the tenant. 
~ 
983 
984 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 
A Nevertheless, it will be easy to see that too strict and literal a compliance 
of their language would be impractical and unworkable. [988H; 989AJ 
(2) The proviso insists that before any amount of rent can be said 
to be in arrears, a notice has to be served through post. All that a 
landlord can do to comply with this provision is to post a prepaid 
B 
registered letter (acknowledgment due or otherwise) containing the 
tenant's correct address. Once he does this and the letter is deli-
vered to the post office, he has no control over it. It is then pre-
sumed to have been delivered to the addressee under s. 27 of the 
General Clauses Act. [989A-B] 
c 
(3) To interpret the provision as requiring that the letter must 
have been actually delivered to the addressee, would be virtually 
rendering it a dead letter. [989F] -
\4) If a registered letter addressed to a person at his residential 
address does not get served in the normal course and is returned, it can 
D 
only be attributed to the addressee's own conduct. If he is compelled to 
be away for some time, all that he has to do is to leave necessary 
instructions with the postal authorities, [989H; 990A] 
(5) The more reasonable, effective, equitable and practical 
interpretation would be to read the words "served" as "sent by post", 
E 
correctly and properly addressed to the tenant, and the word "receipt" 
as the tender of the letter by the postal peon at.the address mentioned in 
the letter. No other interpretation will fit the situation as it is simply not 
possible for a landlord to ensure that a registered letter sent by him gets 
served on, or is received by the tenant. [990B-C] 
f' 
(6) The statute prescribes only one method of service for the 
notice and none other. To require service by some other method to be 
effected over and above the postal service would be to travel outside the 
statute. [990F] 
(7) Where the statute does not specify any additional or alterna-
(i tive mode of service, there can be no warrant for importing into the 
statute a method of service on the lines of the provisions of C.P.C. This 
Court would therefore not like to hold that a "substituted" service, 
such as the one effected by the landlord in th

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