9911796707
TMI Blog1974 (4) TMI 120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On the other side of the envelope there are two cross lines across the name of the addressee tenant and between these two cross lines endorsement 'refused' is noted which bears the date of March 4,1965. The envelope with the endorsements thereon is exhibited in the case and bears Ex. 43. The tenant had also filed an application for fixation of standard rent in respect of the suit promises on April 6, 1965, under Section 11 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and Civil Revision Application No. 790 of 1968 relates to the fixation of rent under Section 11 of the Act. Explanation to Section 12 of the Act provides that a tenant if he makes an application under section 11 to the Court for fixation of standard rent before expiry of the period of one month after the notice of eviction, is deemed to be ready and willing to pay the amount of standard rent and permitted increases provided he tenant thereafter pays or tenders in Court the amount of rent or permitted increases specified in the order and by the Court. The question of service of notice dated March 1, 1965 of eviction of the tenant assumes importance bec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of 'Refused' found on the returned registered envelope without being substantiated by any evidence of the postal peon who went to deliver the letter to the addressee would be sufficient for raising presumption statutory or factual, that the addressee had, in fact, refused to accept the delivery of that letter? (ii) Whether in view of the special provisions contained in Section 12 of the Rent Act, the addressee-tenant who has refused to take delivery of a registered letter addressed to him can be posted with a knowledge that his landlord has given him a notice to pay up the arrears of rent? Under the orders of the learned Chief Justice this Full Bench has been constituted for determining the aforesaid two questions. 2. The first question that is raised is whether when notice dated March 1, 1965 demanding the rent and possession of the premises under the provisions of the Rent Act was sent by the lawyer of the landlord by registered post with an acknowledgement due to the opponent and returned with two endorsements dated March 4, 1965 and March 5, 1965 of refusal, a presumption of due service of the notice can arise in Law. The arguments advanced on behalf that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the service shall be deemed to e effected by properly addressing, prepaying and posting by registered post, a letter containing the document, any, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post. It is obvious that Section 27 of the General Clauses Act and Section 28 of the Bombay General Clauses Act are identical. The question whether in the present case the provisions of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act or Section 28 of the Bombay General Clauses Act apply loses all its importance because the sections are similarly worded and are identical. The purpose of the General Clauses Acts is to place in one single statute different provisions as regards interpretations of words and legal principles which would otherwise have to be specified separately in many different Acts and Regulations. Whatever the General Clauses Act says whether as regards the meanings of the words or as regards legal principles has to be read in every statute to which it applies, vide Chief Inspector of Mines v. Karam Chand Thapar, (1961)IILLJ146SC . New Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 is divisible in two ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Section 27 of the General Clauses Act is a rebut table one. The consequence is that the words unless the contrary is proved govern both the parts of the section. In this view of ours we are fortified by the decisions of the Allahabad High Court in L. C. De Souza, Cawnpore, In re. AIR1932All374 and Badri Prasad v. Lakshmi Narain, AIR1964All426 . Now in the case of Ex parte Woodward and Sons (supra) the relevant part of Section 65 which came for interpretation before the Court was as follows: They may also be served and sent by Post, by a prepaid letter, addressed to such person, or to the office of such body or to their clerk, and, if sent by post, shall be deemed to have been served and received respectively at the time when the letter containing the same would be delivered in the ordinary course of post, and in proving such service or sending it shall be sufficient to prove that the letter containing the notice was properly addressed and prepaid an put into the post. The question involved was in respect of assessment of a property and the law required that a notice by post be served in case where valuation was sought to be revised to the detriment of the owner. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Clauses Act which is differently worded. In Regina v. County of London Quarter Sessions Appeals Committee, Ex parte Rossi (1956) 1 QB 682, a notice by post pursuant to Section 3 (1) of the Summary jurisdiction (Appeals) Act, 1933 of the date, time and place fixed for hearing of an appeal was given by the mother of an illegitimate child from the dismissal of her summons against a man whom she alleged to be the father of the child. The notice was returned to the sender with postal mark Undelivered...... no response . The Court in the case was concerned with interpretation of Section 26 of the Interpretation Act,1889 which is in identical terms with Section 27 of the General Clauses Act. Denning J. observed as under: In the present case, therefore, when the case was called on for hearing on September 28, 1954, and Mr. Rossi did not appear, it was essential for counsel for Mrs. Minors to prove service of the notice in accordance with Section 8 (1) of the Act. He had to prove that the clerk of the peace had in due course given Mr. Rossi notice of the date, time and place of the hearing. This could be done by proof that a notice had been sent to him in good time by post in a regis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered post, it is not enough to prove that it was correctly directed, stamped and posted. That is prima facie enough, but it can be shown that the letter was never delivered, and if it was never delivered then the Court of Appeal has said that there has not been service and that section 26 of the Interpretation Act does not assist. The aforesaid decisions clearly lay down that the presumption of service which arises under the first part of Section 26 of the Interpretation Act of 1889 which is identical in terms with Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, is rebut table and supports the view which we have taken. 3. It was sought to be argued, in the alternative, that the words until the contrary is proved must only refer to the conditions contained in the first part of the section and have no reference to actual service and if any of these conditions are not proved, the presumption that arises under the section is taken away. For this argument reliance was sought to be placed in Mrs. Achamma Thomas v. Fairman AIR 1970 Mys 77 and on the following passage: It is contended by the respondent's counsel that in this case the very fact that the registered letter has come ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r time according to the regular course of business of the post office, and was received by the person to whom it was addressed. That presumption would appear to their Lordships to apply with still greater force to letters that the sender has taken the precaution to register .......... The same conclusion was arrived at in Baluram v. Bai Pannambai ILR (1911) Bom 213. As the presumption is rebut table, can be shown, by leading reliable evidence by the addressee that the letter was never delivered to him in fact in which case it will be held that there was no service. Thus the presumption which arises under the section stands rebutted, No general rule are tee laid down as to what evidence can be Cleared as sufficient to rebut the presumption arises under Section 27.of the General Clauses Act. In the case Roop chand Rangildas v. Haji Hussain Haji Mahomed 16 Bom LR 204: (AIR 1914Bom 31),Mr. justice Beaman after referring to the provisions of Section 27 came to the that a prima facie presumption of service arises under Section 27 and observed as under: Thus it lies on the defendant in this case to prove that it was not delivered. I think for all practical purposes that the is act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re duly delivered. A letter so posted, is to be taken to have been received by the addressee unless the contrary is proved, may happen that when a notice is not received there would be hardships to an individual but looking at tie. Provisions of Section 27, the legislature did intend that the burden must fall on the addressee. The object of the provisions of Section 27 is to ease the burden on a person who sends a registered letter and fulfils the conditions laid down in Section 27. The legislature transfers in such cases the burden to prove non-delivery on the addressee. This is so because in great in majority of cases actual delivery of notice by registered letter is, achieved and only in exceptional cases it will be otherwise. On be proof that the letter was properly addressed, prepaid, registered and put into post office, the rest follows without further proof viz. that the document has been served upon and received by the addressee. The Court has to give effect the presumption that arises under Section 27 even in a case where the registered letter has been returned unopened. A registered letter may be returned back to the sender for various reasons. To illustrate, when the add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time of posting the article from of ten naye Paise in addition to the postage and registration fee, there shall be sent to him on the delivery of the article a form of acknowledgment which shall be signed in ink by the addressee or his duly authorized agent or if the addressee refuses to so s shall be accompanied by a statement to the effect that the addressee or his duly authorised agent has refused to so sign: 'Provided that no fee shall be payable in respect of a registered 'Blind Literature' packet for which an acknowledgment is required. (2) No article for which an acknowledgment is required under sub-rule (1) shall be accepted for registration unless it bears the name and address of the sender and is accompanied by a prescribed form of acknowledgment duly filled in and securely fastened to such article, and unless the article bears the superscription Acknowledgment Due on the address side. Paragraph 191 of the Posts and Telegraphs Manual, Vol. VI provides the manner in which the refused registered article shall be dealt with and the relevant portion thereof provides that inland registered articles or the letter mail which are refused by the address ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t be decided on its own facts. If a registered letter is accepted by the addressee he would be deemed to have knowledge of its contents even if he never cared to read the same. On a parity of reasoning the addressee would be deemed to have knowledge of the contents of a registered letter when he refuses the receipt of it. The Court must be guided in each case by the special circumstances as to how far it will effect to the endorsement on the return cover. In our conclusion on the aforesaid points we are supported by the decisions in Gopal Raghunath v. Krishan 3 Bom LR 420; Baluram v. Bai Pan2a9woba'i (1911) ILR 35 Bom 213; Appabhai Motibhai v. Laxmichand Zaverchand and Co., AIR1954Bom159 ; Bai Sbanta v. Kbalas Ramjibhai Chhotalal AIR 1.956 Born 144; Jugalkishore Jodbalal v. Bombay Revenue Tribunal, AIR1959Bom81 ); Shamsadhi Naga Pinjari v. Gunvautibai Ramsnehi, (1972)74BOMLR723 ; Ganga Ram v. Smt. Phulwati, AIR1970All446 ; Raunaq Ram v. Prabb Daval AIR 1930 Lah 439; Munni Devi v. Puspalata Mondal 71 CWN 282; Ramayya v. Venkatachellamma, AIR1953Mad834 ; Balbhadar Mal v. Conar.r. of Income Tax, Punjab, and Mrs. Achamma Thomas v. E. R. Fairman AIR 1970 Mys 77. The same view has be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n served so as to bring the contents to the notice of the person to whom the letter is addressed, if the agent for service states that in fL4 the notice was not served, although the reason may have been that the addressee declined to accept it. One cannot assume that because an addressee declines to accept a particular sealed envelope he has guessed correctly as to its contents. Many people in this country make a practice of always refusing to accept registered letters, a practice based, I presume on their experience that such documents usually contain something unpleasant. So that, it is clear that this notice was not served on three of the defendants. It was also sought to be argued that unless the endorsement on the envelope is proved in the manner in which it is capable of proof, no presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act can be raised and for this purpose reliance was placed on the decisions in Jankirain Narhad v. Damodhar Ranichandra AIR 1956 Nag 266; firm Ganeshdas Kishnaji v. Murfidbar AIR 1956Madh B. 151; a-ad Mahboob I v. Alvala Lachiniah, AIR1964AP314 . Now it appears that in the decision of Varnan Vithal Ku,karni (supra) the provisions of Section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ption arises that the notice was duly served on and received within proper time by the addressee. This presumption will be under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act. If there is an endorsement of refusal on the envelope a presumption under S. 114 of the Indian Evidence Act also arises viz. that the notice was duly tendered to the tenant but he refused to receive the same and consequently the tenant had the knowledge of the contents of the notice. The special provisions of the Rent Act, in opinion makes difference in this aspect of the law. 7. We shall summaries our conclusions, and they are: (1) That on the proof of the facts that a prepaid, properly addressed letter containing the document was sent by a registered post, a presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act or Section 28 of the Bombay General Clauses Act arises that the registered letter reached its destination at the proper time and was received by the addressee. (2) The words unless the contrary is proved govern both the parts of See. 27 or 28 of the said Act and the presumptions arising there under are rebuttable. (3) That the mere production in Court of an unopened envelope of a registered l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
