Civil Appeal No 2534 of 1969
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 19 8 1969 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Hyderabad in CRP No 2190 of 1968 P P Juneja for the appellant
G N Rao for the respondent
552 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BEG J
The defendant appellant had taken a house on rent under a registered lease dated 10th February 1958 on a monthly rent of rent Rs 250 for a period of five years for running a lodging house
It J is admitted by both sides that in February 1963 the lease had expired
According to the landlord respondent the defendant appellant had continued to hold over as a tenant on the same terms by which he presumably meant that it was a month to month tenancy
The Andhra Pradesh Building Lease Rent and Eviction Control Act 1960 hereinafter referred to as the Act  came into opera ton before the lease expired
The appellant seemed to be constantly making defaults in payments of rent
The landlord responden had therefore to file a suit for arrears of rent in the Court of District Munsif Visakhapatnam which was decreed on 4th April 1962
The landlord respondent had to file a petition on 21st April 1962 under Section 10 of the Act before the Rent Controller Visakhapatnam for the eviction of the appellant as no rent was paid from 1st December 1961 to 31st March 1962
There was a compromise on 12th October 1962
The appellant agreed to clear arrears and to pay rents regularly
The appellant however wailfully defaulted again in payments of rent from September 1963 to April 1964
A notice dated 8th April 1964 was sent by registered post by the landlord respondent to the appellant terminating his tenancy and calling upon him to pay up the arrears of rent and vacate the house by the end of April 1964
This came back with the endorsement that the appellant was refusing to accept it
On 9th  April 1964 the respondent filed another petition under Section 10 of the Act before the Rent Controller of Visakhapatnam who ordered the eviction of the appellant after holding all the flimsy defenses of the t appellant to be unsubstantiated
The Subordinate Judge of Visakhapatnam dismissed the tenant s appeal on 23rd October 1968
The appellant s revision application to the High Court was also rejected on 19th August 1969
The only question raised by the appellant before us in this appeal by special leave is that no notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act had been served upon the appellant according to the finding of the Andhra Pradesh High Court itself
It was therefore urged  that the petition under Section 10 of the Act could not succeed
The Andhra Pradesh High Court had however relied upon Ulligamma Ors
V section Mohan Rao  ors
1 where a Division Bench of that High Court had held that the Act with which we are now concerned provided a procedure for eviction of tenants which was self contained so that no recourse to the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was necessary
We may also refer here to the observations of this Court
in Raval  Co vs K C Ramachandran  ors2
There this Court noticed 1 1969 1 An
PR Law Jolurnal 351
2 197412 SCR 629  634 553 Shri Hem Chand vs Shrmati Sham Devi1 and pointed out that it was held there that the Act under consideration in that case provided the whole procedure for obtaining the relief of ejectment and that being so provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act had no relevance
No doubt the decision mentioned with approval by this Court related to another enactment
But the principle indicated by this Court was the same as that applied by the Andhra Pradesh High Court
It is true that in Mangilal vs Sugan
Chand Rathi Deceased etc2 this Court has held that the provisions of Section 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act of 1955 do not dispense with the requirement to comply with the provisions of Section 16 of the Transfer of Property Act
In that case however Section 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Act merely operated as a bar to an ordinary civil suit so that service of a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act became relevant in considering whether an ordinary civil suit filed on a ground which constituted an exception to the bar contained in Section 4 had to be preceded by a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act
In the context of the remedy of ejectment by an ordinary civil suit it was held that the usual notice of termination of tenancy under Section long of the Transfer of Pro party Act was necessary to terminate a tenancy as a condition precedent to the maintainability of such a suit
In the case before us the respondent landlord relied upon a provision for special summary proceedings for eviction of tenants under an Act which contains all the requirements for those proceedings
We therefore think that the learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court had correctly applied the principle laid down by a Division Bench decision of that Court
He rightly distinguished such a case from Mangilal s case supra where an entirely different kind of provision of another Act in another State was being considered by this Court
The Division Bench decision of the High Court applied by the learned Judge had we think enunciated the correct principle
A question raised before us by learned Counsel for the respondent is whether the notice sent by the respondent landlord could be held not to have been served at all simply because the postman who had made the endorsement of refusal had not been produced
The Andhra Pradesh High Court had relied upon Meghji Kanji Patel vs Kundanmal Chamanlal a to hold that the notice was not served
There a writ of summons sought to be served by registered post had been returned with the endorsement refused
The Bombay High Court held G that the presumption of service had been repelled by the defendant s statement on oath that he had not refused it as it was never brought to him
In this state of evidence it was held that unless the postman was produced the statement of the defendant on oath must prevail
An 1 ILR 1955 Punj
2 AIR 1965 SC 101
3 AIR 1968 Bombay 387
3 608SCI76 554 ex paste decree passed on the basis of such an alleged service was therefore set aside
On facts found the view expressed could not be held to be incorrect
In Nirmalabala Debi vs Provat Kumar Basa1 it was held by the Calcutta High Court that a letter sent by registered post with the endorsement refused on the cover could be presumed to have been duly served upon the addressee without examining the postman who had tried to effect service
What was held there was that the mere fact that the latter had come back with the endorsement refused could not raise a presumption of failure to serve
On the other hand the presumption under section 114 of the Evidence Act would be that in the ordinary course of business it was received by the addressee and actually refused by him
This is also a correct statement of the law
The two decisions are reconcilable
The Calcutta High Court applied a rebuttable presumption which had not been repelled by any evidence
In the Bombay case the presumption had been held to have been rebutted by the evidence of the defendant on oath so that it meant that the plaintiff could not succeed without further evidence
The Andhra Pradesh High Court had applied the ratio disdained of the Bombay case because the defendant appellant before us had deposed that he had not received the notice
It may be that on a closer examination of evidence on record the Court could have reached the conclusion that the defendant had full knowledge of the notice and had actually refused it knowingly
It is not always necessary in such cases to produce the postman who tried to effect service
The denial of service by a party may be found to be incorrect from its own admissions or conduct
We do not think it necessary to go into this question any further as we agree with the High Court on the first point argued before us
Consequently this appeal is dismissed with costs
PBR Appear dismissed


Summary:
The respondent landlord filed a petition under section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Building Lease Rent and Eviction Control Act 1960 for the eviction of the appellant tenant
There was a compromise
Since the tenant defaulted in payment of the rent thereafter a registered notice terminating the tenancy issued by the landlord came back with an endorsement that the appellant had refused to accept it
Later
the tenant was ordered to be evicted The tenant s appeal to the appellate court and then his revision application to the High Court were rejected
Relying upon an earlier Division Bench decision of that Court the High Court held that the Act provided a self contained procedure for eviction of tenants and therefore compliance with the provisions of section 106 Transfer of Property Act was unnecessary
Dismissing the tenant s appeal  HELD The High Court has correctly applied the principle laid down by a Division Bench of that court in Mohan  ors
vs section Mohan Rao  Ors
1969 An
PR Law Journal 351
553 E Raval  Co vs K C Ramacharndran  ors
19741 2 SCR 629  634 and Shri Hern Chand vs Shrimali Sham Devi
ILR 1955 Puni
36 referred to
In Mangilal vs Sugan Chand Rathi AIR 1955 SC 101 this Court was considering an entirely different kind of provision of another Act in another State and this case is distinguishable
In the context of the remedy of ejectment by an ordinary civil suit it was held in that case that the usual notice of termination _ of tenancy under section 106
Transfer of Property Act was necesary
553F  D boiler In cases where a party denies receipt of registered notice it is not always necessary to produce the postman who tried to effect service
Denial of service by a party may be found to be incorrect from its own admissions or conduct
The decision of the Bombay High Court in M K Patel vs Kundan Mal Chamanlal and that of the Calcutta High Court in Nirmal Bala Devi
vs Provar Kumar Basu are reconcilable
The Calcutta High Court applied a rebuttable presumption under section 114 Evidence Act that the letter was received by the addressee in the ordinary course of blazons was refused by him because the presumption from the endorsement made upon it had not been repelled by any  evidence
In the Bombay case the presumption had been held to have been J rebutted by the evidence of the defendant on oath so that it meant that the plaintiff could not succeed without further evidence 554C E