1976 (3) TMI 243 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Eviction decree based on arrears of rent.
2. Validity of ejectment notice service under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.
3. Interpretation of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act regarding service of notice by post.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The plaintiff obtained a decree for eviction against the defendant due to arrears of rent. The trial court and the appellate court found the defendant in default of rent payment and not entitled to protection under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. The defendant failed to comply with the Act's provisions, leading to the eviction decree.

Issue 2:
Regarding the service of the ejectment notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the defendant argued that the notice was not correctly addressed. However, the courts below determined that the notice was sent to the correct address of the defendant, and the service was deemed valid. The defendant's claim that the notice should have been sent by registered post was refuted, with the court emphasizing that Section 27 of the General Clauses Act does not mandate registered post for all notices sent by post.

Issue 3:
The interpretation of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act was crucial in determining the validity of the notice sent under certificate of posting. The court clarified that while Section 27 presumes service when a document is sent by registered post, this presumption is rebuttable. In this case, the courts found the service of the notice valid, as it was sent with the correct address and no postal irregularities were reported. The court cited previous judgments to support the conclusion that sending an ejectment notice by post under certificate of posting is permissible under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the eviction decree and confirming the validity of the ejectment notice service. The court rejected the argument that all notices under Section 106 must be sent by registered post, emphasizing that the method of sending notices under certificate of posting is legally acceptable. The request for leave to appeal under the Letters Patent was also denied.