9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 891X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ol Act, it is clear that no particular mode of giving notice by the landlord to the tenant has been provided for, meaning thereby that the same could be given orally or in writing; and if in writing, it is not necessary that it should be sent only by registered post. What is required is that the landlord has given a notice in that behalf to the tenant . Thus, it is clear that evidence adduced on affidavit was admissible before the Prescribed Authority. In the facts of the present case, when the Appellant (landlord) had filed the photocopy of the receipt of having sent the notice under certificate of posting, along with an affidavit, which was accepted by the Prescribed Authority, and coupled with the attending circumstances as noticed by the Prescribed Authority, a specific finding of fact was recorded that due notice, as required Under Section 21 of the Rent Control Act, had been sent by the Appellant (landlord) and received by the Respondent (tenant), which is fully justified in law. The judgment of the Writ Court is set aside and the release application of the Appellant (landlord), which was allowed by the Prescribed Authority, and affirmed by the Appellate Authority, sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her was that his family consists of himself, his wife and one minor daughter and that he would be ready to pay two years rent as compensation to the Respondent for vacating the said shop and that the need of the Appellant was genuine, bona fide, pressing and urgent. He had further undertaken not to let out the shop in question in future and use the same for his personal business. 4. The Respondent contested the release application and filed his written statement in which he admitted that the Appellant was the landlord of the shop in question. It was stated that the father of the Respondent was tenant of the shop in question since 1951 and was carrying on the business of repair and sale of watches and that the Respondent had been helping his father in business since 1960. It was stated that the income from the said shop was his only source of livelihood and that in spite of his best efforts, he could not get another shop in the locality of Hazratganj, even though, he had applied for allotment of another shop to Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Lucknow. The Respondent also stated that if the Appellant was in genuine need, he would have purchased a vacant shop and not an old tena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his own business. While allowing the writ petition, the High Court held that Release application is dismissed as not maintainable, for want of six months prior notice as required Under Section 21(1)(a) Proviso of the Act . 8. Aggrieved by the said judgment, this appeal has been filed by way of this Special Leave Petition. 9. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and have perused the records. 10. From the perusal of the judgment of the High Court, it is clear that the primary reason for allowing the Writ Petition was that there could be no presumption of service of notice as required under the Proviso to Section 21(1)(a) of the Rent Control Act. The finding of the fact with regard to comparative hardship of the landlord being higher than that of the tenant, as recorded by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority, has not been disturbed by the High Court, except for a mere mention in passing in the later part of the judgment, which cannot be considered to have upset the finding of fact with regard to comparative hardship, as recorded by the Authorities. 11. The case of the Respondent (tenant) is that there was no notice issued by the App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tenant) while admitting the applicant as landlord had filed the application Under Section 30(1) to deposit the rent in the Court . The Prescribed Authority recorded that it was after the notice had been sent in the year 2006 (on 25.07.2006) that an application Under Section 30(1) of the Rent Control Act was filed by the Respondent (tenant) in the year 2007 for deposit of rent in Court, after which, the suit was filed by the Appellant in the year 2008. The said suit was admittedly after three years of the Sale Deed, which was executed on 29.10.2004. It was in this factual background that the Prescribed Authority held that the notice of six months required Under Section 21 of the Rent Control Act was duly given by the landlord to the tenant before filing of the suit in the year 2008. The Respondent-tenant had admitted the Appellant as his landlord and filed an application to deposit rent in Court in the year 2007. It is not disputed that photocopy of the receipt dated 25.07.2006 of having sent the notice under certificate of posting was filed by the Appellant (landlord) along with an affidavit before the Prescribed Authority; and the application of the Respondent (tenant) for filing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f fact was duly affirmed by the Appellate Authority. In our view, such finding of fact (which was not merely a presumption of service based solely on notice having been sent under postal certificate), having been arrived at on the basis of valid reasons in the facts of the case, ought not to have been upset by the Writ Court. 16. Learned Counsel for the Respondent-tenant has, in support of his submissions, relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Ram Suresh Singh v. Prabhat Singh (2009) 6 SCC 681, which would not be of much relevance, as the same relates to a criminal trial where the issue of determining the age of juvenile was under consideration. The same was under the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act, where the Evidence Act was clearly applicable, which is not so in matters under the Rent Control Act, where evidence can also be led on affidavit. The other case of U. Sree v. U. Srinivas (2013) 2 SCC 114, relates to Hindu Marriage Act, where also the Evidence Act is applicable. The question there was with regard to certain document, which had been filed and not proved. The same was filed without being accompanied by an affidavit, whereas in the case at hand, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice sent under postal certificate has rightly been held to be proper service. While considering a case of service of notice under the Companies Act, this Court, in the case of V.S. Krishnan v. Westfort Hi-Tech Hospitals (2008) 3 SCC 363, has held that service of notice sent under certificate of posting would be sufficient where there are materials to show that notices were sent, the burden is on the addressee to rebut the statutory presumption. 18. It may be so that mere receipt of notice having been sent under certificate of posting, in itself, may not be sufficient proof of service, but if the same is coupled with other facts and circumstances which go to show that the party had notice, the same could be held to be sufficient service on the party. In the present case, the law permits filing of a document (receipt of under certificate of posting in this case) to be filed along with an affidavit, which has been done so in this case. Further, there was clear admission of the Respondent (tenant) that the Appellant was his landlord (for which sale deed had been supplied to the tenant) and subsequent act of the Respondent (tenant) depositing the rent Under Section 30(1) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
