9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Presumption of due service of notice. 2. Effect of refusal to accept a registered letter on the tenant's knowledge of the notice. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Presumption of Due Service of Notice The primary question was whether a presumption of due service arises when a registered letter containing a notice is returned with endorsements of refusal. The court examined the provisions of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and Section 28 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904, which are identical. These sections state that service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, prepaying, and posting by registered post, unless the contrary is proved. The court noted that Section 27 of the General Clauses Act is divisible into two parts: the mode of service and the time of service. A two-fold presumption arises: (i) that the service is deemed to have been effected, and (ii) that it is deemed to have been effected at the time the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post. This presumption is rebuttable as indicated by the phrase "unless the contrary is proved." The court rejected the argument that the presumption of service is conclusive and emphasized that the presumption is rebuttable. The court referred to several decisions, including Harihar Benerji v. Ramsashi Roy and Regina v. County of London Quarter Sessions Appeals Committee, Ex parte Rossi, which supported the view that the presumption under Section 27 is rebuttable. The court concluded that the presumption of service arises when a registered letter is properly addressed, prepaid, and posted. However, this presumption can be rebutted by evidence showing that the letter was not delivered. The court also emphasized that the endorsement of refusal on a returned envelope strengthens the presumption of service under Section 27 and Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. Issue 2: Effect of Refusal to Accept a Registered Letter The second question was whether a tenant who refuses to accept a registered letter can be deemed to have knowledge of its contents, particularly in the context of Section 12 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. Section 12(2) of the Act requires a notice demanding rent to be served in the manner provided in Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The court held that when a notice is sent by registered post and is returned with an endorsement of refusal, a presumption arises under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act that the notice was tendered to the tenant and refused. Consequently, the tenant is deemed to have knowledge of the contents of the notice. The court emphasized that the provisions of Section 12 of the Rent Act do not alter this legal position. The court summarized its conclusions as follows: 1. A presumption of service arises under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act or Section 28 of the Bombay General Clauses Act when a registered letter is properly addressed, prepaid, and posted. 2. The presumption is rebuttable. 3. The mere production of an unopened envelope with an endorsement of refusal does not rebut the presumption. 4. The court may raise a presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act based on the endorsement of refusal. 5. The presumption under Section 114 can be rebutted by the addressee with evidence. 6. The court may exhibit the returned envelope and the endorsement to support the presumption of service. 7. The provisions of Section 12 of the Rent Act do not affect the presumption of service. The court answered the referred questions affirmatively, stating that a rebuttable presumption of refusal can be raised under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the tenant can be deemed to have knowledge of the notice when refusing to accept the registered letter. The case was remanded for final disposal in accordance with these legal principles.
|
