1969 (7) TMI 117 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Reasonableness and bona fides of the petitioner's claim for eviction.
2. Greater hardship to the respondent-tenant.
3. Validity of the notice terminating the tenancy.
4. Service of notice by registered post and its legal implications.
5. Affixture of notice on a conspicuous part of the property.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Reasonableness and Bona Fides of the Petitioner's Claim for Eviction:
The petitioner sought eviction on the grounds that she required the premises for her own occupation. The trial court found in favor of the petitioner, determining that her claim was both reasonable and bona fide. This finding was concurred by the First Additional District Judge on appeal, who also found against the tenant on the question of hardship.

2. Greater Hardship to the Respondent-Tenant:
The respondent contended that greater hardship would be caused to him by passing a decree for eviction than by refusing to pass it. However, the trial court and the First Additional District Judge found against the tenant on this issue, siding with the petitioner.

3. Validity of the Notice Terminating the Tenancy:
The pivotal issue was the validity of the notice terminating the tenancy. The petitioner issued a registered notice dated 8-12-1966, terminating the tenancy effective 31st December 1966. The notice was sent to both the respondent's house and official addresses but was returned undelivered. The petitioner also affixed a copy of the notice on a conspicuous part of the premises and sent another notice by certificate of posting. The trial court accepted these actions as constituting valid notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. However, the First Additional District Judge disagreed, leading to the dismissal of the eviction application on appeal.

4. Service of Notice by Registered Post and Its Legal Implications:
The petitioner's counsel argued that the presumption of service arises under Section 27 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899, and Section 114 of the Evidence Act. The court noted that service of notice by registered post is deemed effective if the letter is properly addressed, prepaid, and posted, unless the contrary is proven. The respondent's counsel contended that the returned registered letters indicated no service. However, the court held that the presumption of service stands if the four conditions (properly addressed, prepaid, containing the document, and posted) are met, and the contrary proof pertains to these conditions.

5. Affixture of Notice on a Conspicuous Part of the Property:
The court found that the notice was affixed to a conspicuous part of the property as required under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The respondent argued that the stage for affixture had not arisen as the notice was not tendered or delivered personally to the tenant or his family or servants. The court disagreed, stating that if personal delivery is impracticable, affixture is justified. The court concluded that the petitioner's actions were reasonable given the respondent's history of evading notices.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the revision petition, finding that the petitioner had issued a valid notice of termination and had duly served it through various means, including registered post, certificate of posting, and affixture on a conspicuous part of the property. The court directed the respondent-tenant to vacate and deliver possession of the premises to the petitioner within three months, with costs awarded to the petitioner. The petition was thus allowed.