Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the eviction decree passed by the Trial Court, setting aside the High Court’s judgment that had quashed the decree on the sole ground of non-service of the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The Court held that once a notice is sent by registered post to the correct address, service is deemed under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. It directed the tenant to vacate the premises and clear all dues within three months.
Facts
The appellant was the landlord of a property in Hathras, Uttar Pradesh, leased to the respondent-tenant at Rs.3,000 per month including house and water tax. Upon default in rent payments from June 1, 1999, to September 11, 2000—amounting to Rs.38,416 plus taxes—the landlord issued legal notices dated September 12, 2000, and November 1, 2000, via registered post, seeking arrears, interest, and vacant possession. These notices were returned with the endorsement “ND” (Not Delivered).
The landlord initiated eviction proceedings on December 6, 2000. The tenant remained absent initially and failed to file a written statement for years. Attempts at compromise were alleged, and opportunities for filing pleadings and paying dues were repeatedly missed. The Trial Court eventually struck off the tenant’s defense and decreed eviction with mesne profits at Rs.2,500/month and interest at 9% per annum, also dismissing claims for taxes and roof usage.
However, the High Court reversed this decree on the ground that the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was not served, misinterpreting the postal endorsement “ND” to mean the notice was never received.
Issues
- Whether the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was validly served on the tenant, despite the postal return marked “ND”.
- Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the Trial Court’s decree solely on the ground of non-service of notice.
- Whether the High Court’s exercise of revisional jurisdiction under CPC was legally sustainable.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The landlord contended that the notices were duly sent by registered post to the tenant’s correct address, thereby satisfying the requirements of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and invoking the deemed service provision under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act. It was further submitted that the tenant had defaulted in payment and did not avail of multiple opportunities to regularize his position.
Respondent’s Arguments
The tenant argued that the notices under Section 106 were never served upon him and that the endorsement “ND” meant “Not Delivered,” which indicated failure of service. On this sole basis, it was claimed that the Trial Court’s decree was invalid and deserved to be set aside.
Analysis of the Law
The Supreme Court reaffirmed the legal position that where a notice is sent by registered post to the correct address with prepayment of postal charges, service is deemed under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, unless the contrary is proved.
Further, under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, a tenancy can be terminated by a 15-day notice, and if the notice is dispatched by registered post, it satisfies the requirement of service unless proved otherwise.
Precedent Analysis
- Madan & Co. v. Wazir Jaivir Chand (1989) 1 SCC 264 – Held that posting a registered letter with correct address triggers the presumption of service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act.
- C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Mouhammed (2007) 6 SCC 555 – Clarified that dispatch of notice by registered post in cheque dishonour cases under Section 138 NI Act suffices to constitute valid service.
- Vishwabandhu v. Srikrishna (2021) 19 SCC 549 – Deemed service applies where registered summons are returned with “refusal” endorsement.
- Ram Murti Devi v. Pushpa Devi (2017) 15 SCC 230 – Highlighted the scope of revisional jurisdiction and emphasized that interference is not warranted unless there is lack of jurisdiction or miscarriage of justice.
- Hari Shankar v. Rao Girdhari Lal Chowdhury AIR 1963 SC 698 – Cited for parameters governing revisional jurisdiction.
These precedents collectively reinforced that “ND” endorsement does not rebut the statutory presumption of service under Section 27 unless contrary evidence is brought on record.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court criticized the High Court’s mechanical interpretation of “ND” as “Not Delivered” and its conclusion that no valid notice was served. It emphasized that once a notice is posted with correct address and prepaid, service is deemed unless rebutted with proof.
The Court observed:
“The High Court was plainly in error… The impugned order was passed without consideration of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act.”
The Court found no exceptional circumstance justifying the High Court’s exercise of revisional jurisdiction. There was neither lack of jurisdiction nor a miscarriage of justice warranting reversal of the Trial Court’s decree.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment, and restored the eviction decree passed by the Trial Court. The tenant was granted three months to vacate the premises and pay arrears, mesne profits, and taxes. The judgment was directed to be sent to the District Court in Hathras for compliance.
Implications
This judgment reinforces the doctrine of “deemed service” under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act. It puts landlords on firmer legal ground when notices sent via registered post are returned undelivered. It also cautions High Courts against mechanically reversing Trial Court decrees in revision unless jurisdictional or procedural infirmities are clearly established.
Case Law Referred and Its Significance
- Madan & Co. v. Wazir Jaivir Chand – Established deemed service when notice is sent by registered post.
- C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Mouhammed – Clarified that dispatch of notice suffices for cause of action in cheque dishonour cases.
- Vishwabandhu v. Srikrishna – Reiterated deemed service on refusal.
- Ram Murti Devi v. Pushpa Devi – Limited revisional interference to cases involving grave procedural error.
- Hari Shankar v. Rao Girdhari Lal Chowdhury – Defined the parameters of revisional jurisdiction.
FAQs
Q1. Is notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act valid if returned as ‘Not Delivered’?
Yes. As long as the notice is sent by registered post to the correct address, service is deemed under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, even if returned with an endorsement like “ND”.
Q2. Can a High Court reverse an eviction decree solely on the ground of non-service of notice?
Not unless there is a proven miscarriage of justice or lack of jurisdiction. Revisional powers must be exercised sparingly and not for mere reassessment of facts.
Q3. What is the legal effect of sending a notice via registered post under Indian law?
It creates a presumption of service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act. The burden shifts to the addressee to prove that the notice was not received or that they were not avoiding service.
