1988 (11) TMI 348 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 11 of the Jammu & Kashmir Houses & Shops Rent Control Act, 1966.
2. Validity of service of notice by registered post.
3. Compliance with statutory requirements for eviction.

Summary:

1. Interpretation of Section 11 of the Act:
The appeal involves the interpretation of Section 11 of the Jammu & Kashmir Houses & Shops Rent Control Act, 1966. The petitioner, a tenant, was alleged to have defaulted in paying rent and faced eviction proceedings initiated by the respondent landlord. The Sub Judge, District Judge, and High Court all ruled in favor of the landlord, leading to this appeal by special leave.

2. Validity of Service of Notice by Registered Post:
The controversy centered on whether the notice sent by the respondent by registered post on 26.11.1976 can be said to have been served and received by the petitioner. The appellant contended that the statute requires actual receipt of the notice by the tenant, which did not occur in this case. The Court, however, held that the despatch of the notice by registered post was sufficient compliance with the statutory requirement. The Court reasoned that once a landlord posts a prepaid registered letter containing the tenant's correct address, it is presumed to have been delivered to the addressee u/s 27 of the General Clauses Act. The Court emphasized that interpreting the provision to require actual delivery would render it impractical and unworkable.

3. Compliance with Statutory Requirements for Eviction:
The Court noted that the landlord had also attempted to serve the notice by affixing it to the premises in the presence of witnesses. While the appellant argued that this showed a lack of bona fides, the Court found that the landlord had done his best under the circumstances. The Court concluded that the landlord's actions were sufficient to comply with the statutory requirements, and the eviction petition could not be dismissed on this ground. The Court expressed hope that the legislature would address the unsatisfactory provision regarding notice but upheld the lower courts' decisions and dismissed the appeal without costs.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the eviction order, interpreting the statutory requirement of notice service as fulfilled by sending a registered letter to the tenant's correct address, even if not actually received. The appeal was dismissed.