Regular Second Appeal No. 4105 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 4105 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : October 29, 2010 Gurcharan Singh and others ....Appellants versus Raj Dulari and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. AS Jattana, Advocate, for the appellants L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) CM No. 12327.C. of 2010 Allowed as prayed for and Annexures A/1 to A/4 are taken on record subject to all just exceptions. CM No. 12328. C of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. CM No. 12329.C of 2010 and RSA No. 4105 of 2010 Defendants no. 1 to 4 and 6 have filed the instant second appeal having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below. Suit was filed by respondents no. 1 to 4 against appellants and Paul Kaur defendant no. 5 – proforma respondent no. 5 and Parmod alias Anita proforma defendant no. 7 – proforma respondent no. 6. The plaintiffs Regular Second Appeal No. 4105 of 2010 (O&M) -2- alleged that they are legal heirs of Kundan Lal since deceased who had rented out disputed shop to Bhagwan Singh since deceased predecessor of defendants no. 1 to 5 i.e. appellants no. 2 to 5 and proforma respondent no. 5 whereas Gurcharan Singh defendant no. 6 – appellant no. 1 is brother of Bhagwan Singh. The tenancy was in favour of Bhagwan Singh only. Rate of rent was ` 50/- per month. Tenancy of defendants was terminated by serving notice dated 3.6.2006 by registered post. Accordingly, the plaintiffs claimed possession of the disputed shop by ejectment of defendants therefrom and also claimed recovery of ` 2000/- as arrears of rent. Defendants no. 1 to 4 and 6 (appellants herein) only contested the suit. It was admitted that Kundan Lal rented out the disputed shop to Bhagwan Singh. However, it was pleaded that the tenancy was jointly in favour of Bhagwan Singh and Gurcharan Singh and not Bhagwan Singh alone. Both of them have been regularly paying rent. Receipt of notice of termination of tenancy was denied. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala vide judgment and decree dated 26.11.2008 decreed the plaintiffs' suit. First appeal preferred by defendants no. 1 to 4 and 6 stands dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala vide judgment and decree dated 31.8.2010. Feeling aggrieved, defendants no. 1 to 4 and 6 have preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. At the outset it has to be noticed that it is not in dispute that Regular Second Appeal No. 4105 of 2010 (O&M) -3- Kundan Lal predecessor of the plaintiffs had let out the disputed shop. In other words, relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is not in dispute. Provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 are not applicable as the disputed shop is not in urban area. Consequently, the only question to be determined was whether the tenancy had been validly terminated. Both the courts below have found that the tenancy had been terminated validly. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the tenancy was not validly terminated because the notice sent for termination of tenancy was sent back by the postal authorities with endorsement made by Postman on seven days that the addressees were not available. The contention cannot be accepted. Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.T.Thomas vs Thomas Job, 2005(3) RCR (Civil) 621 has dealt with this issue. It was held that if notice is sent by registered post at correct address and if addressee is not found and Postman returned the notice with endorsement that addressee was absent, presumption is that addressee has been served and there is no obligation to examine the Postman. Similarly Karnataka High Court in Jodharam vs Jaganmathamma, 2007(2) Civil Court Cases 77 held that if notice is sent by registered post at correct address and the same is returned with endorsement 'addressee absent continuously for seven days', notice is presumed to have been served. Reference with advantage in this regard may also be made to judgment of Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Chander Mohan Arora versus Sunil Jain, 2004(4) RCR (Civil) 47. No judgment to the contrary has been cited by the learned counsel for the appellants. Consequently, in the the instant case, notice of termination Regular Second Appeal No. 4105 of 2010 (O&M) -4- of tenancy is deemed to have been served on the defendants. Learned counsel for the appellants also contended that the appellants had been sending rent to the plaintiffs by money order. Application for additional evidence bearing CM No. 12329.C of 2010 has also been made for producing money order receipts by way of additional evidence. However, the proposed additional evidence is irrelevant. The amount sent by money order was allegedly not accepted by the plaintiffs. However, there is no dispute that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and defendants no. 1 to 5. Consequently, sending of rent by money order becomes irrelevant and insignificant. Moreover, the money orders were sent before the filing of the suit. The application is accordingly dismissed. Both the courts below have concurrently recorded finding against the appellants. The said finding is based on proper apprection of evidence and cannot be said to be perverse or illegal so as to warrant interference in the second appeal. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L.N. Mittal ) October 29, 2010 Judge 'dalbir'