1993 (8) TMI 309 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
Validity of notice terminating the tenancy and proper service.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute over the validity of a notice terminating a tenancy and whether there was proper service of the notice. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for ejectment from a land purchased from the original owner. The defendant, after the death of the original tenant, contested the suit on the grounds that the suit was not maintainable and that the notice of ejectment was not served properly. The main issue for decision was whether there was a valid notice terminating the tenancy and whether the defendant had been properly served.

The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, which was affirmed by the first appellate court. The courts relied on the evidence presented, including the postal receipt, acknowledgment, and testimony of witnesses, to determine that the notice was valid and properly served. The courts found that the notice fulfilled the legal requirements as per the relevant Acts. The defendant did not specifically deny the receipt of the notice in his written statement, which was considered an implied admission under Order 8 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code.

The High Court, however, interfered with the findings of the lower courts, stating that the notice had not been served based on the defendant's statement that the notice was not according to law. The Supreme Court, upon review, held that the defendant's non-traversal of the notice constituted an implied admission under Order 8 Rule 5. The Court emphasized that every allegation of fact in the plaint must be denied specifically or by necessary implication; otherwise, it shall be taken as admitted. The High Court's interference was deemed incorrect, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the plaintiff.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' findings regarding the validity of the notice and proper service, emphasizing the importance of specific denials in the written statement to avoid implied admissions. The Court clarified the application of Order 8 Rule 5 in determining admissions based on non-traversal of facts in the pleadings.