THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2119 and 2120 of 2015 COMMON ORDER: C.R.P.No.2119 of 2015 is filed challenging the order dt.30-04-2015 in I.A.No.114 of 2015 in O.S.No.1271 of 2012 of the XXI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. 2. C.R.P.No.2120 of 2015 is filed challenging the order dt.30-04-2015 in I.A.No.115 of 2015 in O.S.No.1271 of 2012 of the XXI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. 3. The petitioner herein is defendant in the said suit. The respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit for eviction of petitioner alleging that the petitioner is their tenant. 4. The petitioner filed a written statement disputing the said fact and contending that one Inayath Ali Khan is his landlord. He also pleaded that when the said Inayath Ali Khan has refused to give receipts for the rents paid by him, after complying with Section 8 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, the petitioner filed an application before the competent Rent Controller for deposit of rent into Court vide R.C.C.No.65 of 2012; that the said application was allowed on 04-05- 2012 and that the petitioner had been continuously depositing rents there. 5. He contended that he had issued notice and Court notices through Registered Post Acknowledgment Due to the said Inayath Ali Khan, that he refused to receive them and that in his evidence as C.W.1, the said Inayath Ali Khan had denied that any Postman came to his house. 6. The petitioner therefore filed I.A.No.114 of 2015 for issuance of summons to one Satyanarayana, Area Postman of King Kothi, Hyderabad to give evidence on his behalf to prove that notices and Court notices were sent to the said person and he had purposefully avoided to receive them. It was also contended that this fact would go to the root of the case that no attornment of tenancy took place and petitioner’s landlord is Inayath Ali Khan and not respondents. 7. The petitioner also filed I.A.No.115 of 2015 to reopen the evidence of defendants. 8. I.A.No.114 of 2015 and I.A.No.115 of 2015 were opposed by respondents, who contended that these applications are filed only to drag on the proceedings when the suit is posted for arguments; that the defendant admitted that he sent notices to C.W.1 to wrong address and therefore calling the Postman to adduce evidence will not help in adjudication of the suit; moreover, C.W.1 is residing in the upstairs of the respondents’ mulgi and the door number of petitioner and C.W.1 is one and the same; and therefore sending money order and furnishing wrong address on postal covers in proceedings under Section 8 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act is deliberate act and therefore, these applications be dismissed. 9. By separate orders dt.30-04-2015, the Court below dismissed I.A.Nos.114 and 115 of 2015. It held that as per Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, when notices are sent to the correct address and when there is an endorsement that the notices are ‘unclaimed’, the presumption is that notice is properly served. It held that in the present case, petitioner had sent notices to the address of Inayath Ali Khan and, if he refused to take it and there is an endorsement of refusal by the Postman, the presumption is that the said person refused to receive it. It further held that the burden is on the person who denies that Postman came to his house to prove it and since such presumption is in favour of petitioner, no useful purpose will be served by calling the Postman. As a consequence of dismissal of this I.A., I.A.No.115 of 2015 is also dismissed. 10. Challenging the same, these Revisions are filed. 11. The learned counsel for petitioner contends that the evidence of Postman is very crucial to establish the contention of petitioner that Inayath Ali Khan is the owner of the schedule premises, of which the petitioner is a tenant; said Inayath Ali Khan had given incorrect evidence in the Court that no Postman had come to his house in spite of the fact that the notice and the registered notices sent to him were refused as per the postal endorsements on them. He therefore contended that both these applications ought to have been allowed by the Court below. 12. The suit is filed for eviction of petitioner by respondents claiming that they are the landlords and petitioner is their tenant. It is no doubt true that petitioner is contending that respondents are not his landlords; that they are not owners of the subject premises and that Inayath Ali Khan is the owner thereof and also his landlord. In a suit of this nature, the crucial issue is only as to whether there is landlord and tenant relationship between respondents and petitioner. While deciding the said issue, the Court below is bound to decide incidental point whether Inayath Ali Khan is the landlord of the petitioner. 13. The learned counsel for petitioner has not disputed the fact that there is a presumption in favour of petitioner under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act of deemed service notices if they have been sent to the correct address and they are returned with an endorsement ‘refused’ or ‘unclaimed’. It may be that Inayath Ali Khan had deposed in the Court as C.W.1 stating that no Postman came to his house, but that statement alone is not sufficient to rebut the presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act without anything more. 14. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Court below had rightly rejected the application to summon the Postman as a witness in the suit. 15. I am of the opinion that if Inayath Ali Khan is the landlord of petitioner, the petitioner is bound to succeed in the suit. If Inayath Ali Khan is not the landlord and it is found by the Court below that respondents are the owners, then petitioner may not succeed and the suit may be decreed. 16. In this view of the matter, whether Inayath Ali Khan admits to have received these notices or not is not really significant. 17. Therefore, there was no merit in the Revisions and these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. 18. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any in these Revisions, shall stand disposed of. ___________________________________ JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO Date: 12-06-2015 Vsv/*