Holding

A notice sent by registered post to the party intended to be bound, including a company tenant, is valid service under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, and the presumption of service is not rebutted by mere denial, thereby confirming the tenants' default under Section 12(3)(b) and upholding the possession decree.

Summary

The landlords filed a suit for possession under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The dispute centered on whether a notice dated 7‑8‑1980, sent by registered post to the tenant company, was validly served under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, and whether the tenants were in default of rent under Section 12(3)(b) of the Act. The trial court held the notice was not proved and that the tenants had not defaulted; the Additional District Judge reversed, presuming service of the registered post notices and finding the tenants in rent default. The High Court affirmed the Additional District Judge’s decree. The Supreme Court held that a notice sent by registered post to the party intended to be bound, such as a company, satisfies Section 106 and the presumption of service stands unless extraordinary circumstances are proved. It also affirmed that the tenants were in default under Section 12(3)(b). Consequently, the decree for possession was upheld and the appeal dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act sent by registered post to a company tenant is deemed served.
Whether the presumption of service of such notice can be rebutted by the tenant's denial of an acknowledgment receipt.
Whether the tenants were in default of rent under Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.

Legislation cited

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947s. 12(3)(b)
General Clauses Acts. 27
Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 114
Transfer of Property Acts. 106

Subjects

notice serviceregistered postTransfer of Property Actpossession suitrent defaultBombay Rents Actpresumption of serviceacknowledgement receiptlandlord-tenant

Judgment

KULKARNI PATIERNS PVT. LTD. AND ORS.
A
v.
VASANT BABURAO . ASHTEKAR AND ORS.

JANUARY 17, 1992
B
[N. M. KASLIWAL AND R. C. PA1NAIK, JJ.]

Transfer of Property Act -Section 106-Termination notice-Sent by
posf-Service-l'resumption and rebuJta~When arises.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947-
Section 13 (1) (b)--App/icability of. c
The RlSpondents-landlords filed a suit for possession or the suit
premises against the appellants on the ground or default in payment or
rent, amongst others. The 7th Additional Small Causes Judge, dismissed
the suit holding that the service or notice dated 7-8-1980 on the
defendants terminating the tenancy was not proved, even though one D
out of the three acknowledgements due, had been received duly signed.
As regards the question or default in payment or rent, the learned Judge
took the view that the case did not fall under Section 12(J)(b) or the Act,
as the defendants had paid Rs. 55,800 on 16.1.1984 and thereafter made
_,.l
regular payment or Rs. 600 every month. On appeal by the respondent·
landlords, the learned Additional District Judge reversed the findings or E
the trial Court and decreed the suit. The learned Additional District
Judge held that when the notices are sent by registered post, it is
presuaied to have been served and mere denial by the tenants had no
value, unless they proved some extraordinary happenings or events
which prevented following or usual course of business. On the question F
or default in payment or rent the learned Judge held that as the
defendants did not deposit the entire arrears on the first date or hearing
•nd did not deposit the further rent during the pendency or the appeal,
they persistently committed defaults during the pendency or the suit and
also the appeal. The appellants thereupon filed a writ petition in the
High Court challenging the validity of the aforesaid order or the learned G
Additional District Judge. The High Court dismissed the writ petition
and affirmed the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge.
Hence this appeal by the appellants, after obtaining special leave.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court,
H
227
228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992] l S.C.R.

A HELD : The notice under Section 106 T.P. Act can be sent by post '-'
to the party who is intended to be bound by it. Thus the notice sent by
registered post in the name or the defendant company who is the tenant
is fully in accordance with the requirement or section 106 of the
Transfer of Property Act. [232H-233A]

B The plaintiffs had sent a copy or the notice to all the three
defendants by registered post. Three postal receipts Exhs. 52, 53 and 54
have been med in the present case and Exh. 51, one acknowledgement
receipt. As regards Exh. St, the defendants No.2 has appeared in the
witness box and has denied his signatures. However, it has not been
shown that this acknowledgement receipt was related to which or the
C three notices sent vide postal receipts Exhs. 52, 53 and 54. [231E-F]

Tbe rebuttal, if any, made by defendant No. 2 can be related only
with regard to Exh. SI for one notice but not with regard to all the three
notices sent by registered post vide Exhs. S2 to S4. [232D]

D The service or notice shall have to be presumed so far as
defendent company is concerned and there is no rebuttal to such
•
presumption by the defendant appellants. [232E]

The finding recorded by the learned Additional District Judge
that the defendants were defaulter in the payment ohent as full amount
E or rent was not paid or deposited on the first date or hearing and no rent
was paid month by month during the pendency of the appeal could not
be assailed. [2338]

Green View Radio Service v. Laxmibai Ramji and Anr., (1990] 4 SCC
497, referred to. (
F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4134 of
1991.

From the Judgment and Order dated 30.8.1991 of the Bombay High
G Comt in Writ Petition No. 3580 of 1991.

J.P. Pathak and P.H. Parekh for the Appellants.
(
A.M. Khanwilkar and S.K. Parshankar. for the Respondents.

H The Judgment of the Comt was delivered by
KULKARNI PATIERNS v. VASANTBABURAO [KASLIWAL, J.] 229

y KASUWAL, J. This appeal by grant of special leave is directed A
against the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 30th August, 1991
in a suit for possession under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House
Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The suit was
dismissed by the 7th Additional Small Causes Judge. On appeal the learned
10th Additional District Judge, Pune by judgment dated 25.4.1991 set aside
the order of the lrial court and decreed the plaintiffs suit for possession. B
The tenants filed the writ petition in the High Court challenging the order
of the Additional District Judge, but the· same was dismissed and the decree
for possession passed by the Additional District Judge was affll'Jlled.

The trial court 1held that the service of notice dated 7.8.1980 on the
defendant-tenants was not held proved. The plaintiffs were unable to prove
that the postal acknowledgement Exhibit 51 contained the signatures of
c
defendant no.2 or 3. It was held that on the point of service of notice the
case of the plaintiff was rather confusing and not clear. It was held that even
assuming that the notice had been served yet the case did not fall under
·Section 12 (3) (a) of the Act The lrial court also held that the case did not
fall under Section 12 (3) (b) of the Act as the defendants had paid Rs. D
55,800 on 16.1.1984 and thereafter made regular payment of Rs. 600 every
month. According to the learned trial court the issues were framed on
).
26.8.1985 and before that the defendants had made full payment as
demanded in the notice and as such no decree can be passed under Section
12(3)(b) of the Act
E
Learned Additional District Judge reversed the above finding of the
lrial court and held that the evidence of the plaintiff showed that the copy
of the notice .was sent to all the defendants by registered post The postal
receipts have been filed as exhibits 52, 53 and 54. Learned Additional
District Judge further held that when the notices are sent by registered post
it is presumed to have been served and mere denial by the tenants had no F
~.
_..;.,.
value, unless they proved some extraordinary happenings or events which
prevented following of usual course of business. Learned Additional District
Judge further held that the '}Otice was sent on the address given in the plaint
and it was admitted by the defendant in his statement that it contained the •
correct address. A presumption of service of notice was drawn under
Section 27 of the General Clauses Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act. G
Learned Additional District Judge though affll'll1ed the finding of the lrial
court that the case is not covered under section 12 (3) (a) of the Act, but
the plaintiffs were entitled to a decree under Section 12 (3) (B) of the Act
In this regard learned Additional District Judge recorded the finding that the
entire arrears of rent amounted to Rs. 71,088 buf the defendant-tenant only H
230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992] l S.C.R_.

A deposited Rs. 66,000 till the first date of hearing and thus remained in
"'
arrears of Rs. 5,088. It was also held that the provisions of 12 (3)(b) of the
Act are mandatory provisions and those are required to be strictly complied
with by the tenants during the pendency of the suit and also appeal when
the landlord· claims possession of the suit premises on the ground of Section
12(3)(b) of the Act The defendant-tenant did not deposit the entire arrears
B on the first date of hearing and did not deposit the further rent during the
pendency of the appeal. Thus the defendant persistently committed defaults
during the pendency of the suit and also the appeal in paying the rent.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have thoroughly
gone through the record. It is important to note that M/s. Kulkarni Patterns
c Pvt. Ltd. (defendant No.I) was the tenant, defendant No. 2 Shri D.G.
Kulkarni was the Chairman of the company and defendant No. 3 Mrs. M.D
Kulkarni was the wife of defendant No. 2 and Director of defendant No. I.

The plaintiffs sent a notice dated 7.8.1980 to all the defendants vide
postal receipts Exhibit 52, 53 and 54. Exhibit 51 is only one acknowledge-
D ment receipt which has been produced on record.

It has been contended on behalf of the appellants that the learned
Additional District Judge was wrong in drawing presumption of service of
notice in the focts of the present case. It was submitted that the plaintiff
initially stated that the acknowledgement receipt Exhibit 51 contained the
E signatures of defendant No. 3, but subsequently admitted that it contained
the signature of defendant No.2. It was further argued that defendant No.2.
had appeared in the witness box and clearly denied his signatures on Exhibit
5 L It was thus contended that the presumption of service of notice was
rebutted and thereafter the burden lay on the plaintiffs to prove the service
of notice by examining the postman or by other evidence and the plaintiffs
F having failed to do so, the service of notice having not established, the suit
was liable to be dismissed. Reliance in support of the above contention was .....
placed on a decision of this Court to which one of us was a party in Green
view Radio Service v. Laxmibai Ramji And Another, (1990] 4 S.C.C. 497.
Reliance was placed on the following observations made in the above case.
G
"In this connection, we may also point out that the provisions i
of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act require that
notice to quit has to be sent either by post to the party or be
tendered or delivered personally to such party or to one of his
family members or servants at his residence or if such tender or
H delivery is not practicable, affixed to a conspicuous part of the ~
KULKARNIPATIERNSv. VASANTBABURAO[KASUWAL.J.J 231

property. The service is complete when the notice is sent by A
posL In the present case, as pointed out earlier, the notice was
sent by the plantiffs advocate by registered post acknowledge-
ment due. The acknowledgement signed by the party was
received by the advocate of the plaintiff. Thus in our view the
presumplion of service of a letter sent by registered post can be
rebutted by the addressee by appearing as witness and stating B
that he never received such letter. If the acknowledgement due
receipt contains the signatures of the addressee himself and the
addressee as a witness states that he never received such letter
and the acknowledgement due does not bear his signature and
such statement of the addressee is believed then it would be a
sufficient rebuttal of the presumption drawn against him. The C
burden would then shift on the plaintiff who wants to rely on
such presumption to satisfy the court by leading oral or docu-
mentary evidence to prove the service of such letter on the
addressee. This rebuttal by the defendant of the presumption
drawn against him would of course depend on the veracity of his
statement. The court in the facts and circumstances of a case D
may not consider such denial by the defendant as truthful and
in that case such denial alone would not be sufficient. But if
there is nothing IO disbelieve the statement of the defendant then
it would be sufficient rebuttal of the presumption of service of
such letter or notice sent to him by registered post"
E
In the present case the plaintiffs had sent a copy of the notice to all
the three defendants by registered· post Three postal receipts Exhibits 52,
53 and 54 have been filed in the present case and Exhibit 51, one ac-
knowledgement receipt As regards Exhibit 51, the defendant No.2 has
appeared in the witness box and has denied his signatures. However, ii has
not been shown that this acknowledgement receipt was related IO which of F
the three notices sent vide postal receipts Exhibits 52, 53 and 54. The
plaintiffs have clearly proved that three notices were sent by registered post
and which is clearly born out from the three postal receipts. Admittedly the
premises were taken on rent in the name of the defendant No. I namely
Kulkarni Patterns PvL Lid. and it is proved that one of the notices by G
registered post was also sent to the company. It has been admitted by the
defendant No. 2 in his Statement that the notice was sent on the correct
address. The defendant No.2 in his statement has nowhere stated that no
notice had been received by the company. The only denial is in respect of
the acknowledgement receipt Exhibit 51 and the only inference which could
legilimately be drawn is that in respect of one notice, it was not proved as H
232 SUPREME COORT REPORTS (1992] I S.C.R.

A to who acknOwledged lhe receipt of lhe notice. We do not approve the y
following Slalelllent of law made by the learned Additional Dislrict Judge
"that !he evidence of !he defendant did not show any extraordinary
happenings or the events which prevented the following of usual course of
business and thus, his mere denial has no value". However, in !he present
case three notices were sent by registered post and one of which was sent
B in the name of the defendant company who was the tenant, a presumption
can legitimately be drawn !hat !he notice dated 7.8.1980 had been served 1
on !he company. There is no rebuual on behalf of the defendant as regards '
the notice served on the company and in the facts and circulllSlllllCCS of the '
present case we hold that notice dated 7.8.1980 sent by registered post was
served on the defendant company. In Green View Radio Service (supra) it
c was held that the acknowledgement due receipt contained !he signature of
the addressee himself and !he addressee as a witness stated that he never
received such leuer and !he acknowledgement due did not bear his signature
and such statement of the addressee if believed !hen it would be a sufficient
rebuttal of the presumption drawn against him. The burden will !hen shift
on !he plaintiff who wants to rely on such presumption to satisfy !he coun
D by leading oral or documentary evidence to prove the service of such letter .
on the addressee. Even applying !his statement of law in the facts of the
present case, the rebuttal, if any. made by defendant No.2 can be related
only wilh regard to Exhibit 51 for one notice but not wilh regard to all the
three notices sent by registered post vide Exhibits 52 to 54. Thus, in the
facts of !he case in hand before us we are fully convinced that the service
E of notice shall have to be presumed so far as defendant company is
concerned and !here is no rebuual to such presumption by the defendant
appellants.

The requirement of sending notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act is

-
to be done in the manner prescribed under paragraph two of Section 106 of
F the Transfer of Property Act which reads as under:
-;-
''Every notice under this Section must be in writing signed by
or on behalf of !he person giving it and either be sent by post
to the party who is intended to be bound by it or be tendered
or delivered personally to such party, or to one of his family or
G servants, at his residence, or (if such tender or delivery is not
practicable) affixed to a conspicuous part of !he property."

The reading of the above provision clearly shows that the notice can
be sent by post to the party who is intended to be bound by it. Thus, the
H notice sent by registered post in the name of the defendant company who JI.-..-
KULKARNIPATI'ERNSv. VASANTBABURAO[KASUWAL,J.] 233

is Ille lalaJ1l is fully in accordance with Ille requirement of section 106 of A
Ille Transfer of Property ACL

So far as the finding recorded by Ille learned Additional District Judge
!hat Ille defendants were defaulter in the payment of rent and full amount
of rent was not paid or deposited on the fust date of hearing and no rerit
was paid month by month during Ille pendency of the appeal could not be B
assailed by the learned counsel for Ille appellants. Thus, Ille learned
Additional District Judge as well as the High Court was right in passing a
decree for possession under section 12 (3) (b) of Ille Acl As a result of Ille
above discussion and findings reconled by us, we find no force in this
appeal and lM same is dismissed with costs.

Y.L. Appeal dismissed.

I