Case: Harcharan Singh Vs. Shiv Rani and Others

proper or effective service which must mean service of everything that is contained in the notice. It is impossible to countenance the suggestion that before knowledge of the contents of the notice could be imputed the sealed envelope must be opened and read by the addressee or when the addressee happens to be an illiterate person the contents should be read over to him by the postman or someone else. Such things do not occur when the addressee is determined to decline to accept the sealed envelope. It would, therefore, be reasonable to hold that w hen service is effected by refusal of a postal communication the addressee must be imputed. with the knowledge of the contents thereof and in our view, this follows upon the presumptions that are raised under s. 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and s. 114 of the Indian Evidence Act.7. Turning to the Bombay decision in Vaman Vithals case (supra), We would like to point out two aspects that emerge clearly from the very observations which have been strongly relied upon by counsel for the appellant. In the first place, the observations clearly show that the refusal to accept the notice was not satisfactorily proved in the case inasmuch as the postman who took the letter and brought it back had not been examined; consequently the further observations made by the leaned Chief Justice were unnecessary for decision on the point and as such will have to be regarded as obiter.8. Secondly, while making those observations the learned Chief Justice WAS himself conscious of the fact that there were some authorities of that Court taking the contrary view. Having regard to these aspects it is difficult to hold that the concerned observations lay down the correct legal position in the matter. In any event we approve of the view taken by the Allahabad High Court in its three decisions, namely, Sri Naths case, Fanni Lals case and Ganga Rams case (supra) and would confirm the High Courts finding on the point in favour of the respondents.9. Counsel for the appellant then faintly argued that the respondents suit was not maintainable under s. 14(1) of the Act inasmuch as no permission of the District Magistrate had been obtained by the respondents before filing the suit as required by s. 14 and in this behalf reliance was placed on s. 14(a) of the Act which ran thus:"14. Restrictions on eviction. No suit shall, without the permission of the District Magistrate, be filed in any Civil Court against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation except on one or more of the following grounds, namely:(a) that the tenant has willfully failed to make payment to the landlord of any arrears of rent within one month of the service upon him of a notice of demand from the landlord."According to counsel for the appellant the aforesaid provision clearly shows that under the Act two safeguards were available to a tenant- (i) eviction could not be had by any landlord except on one or more of the grounds specified in cls. (a) to (f) of s. 14 and (ii) no suit for eviction even on those grounds specified in cls. (a) to (f) could be instituted without the permission of the District Magistrate, and admittedly the landlords in the instant case had filed the suit against the appellant without obtaining the permission of the District Magistrate. He, therefore, urged that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the decree was without jurisdiction.10. It must be observed that no such contention was raised by the appellant in any of the Courts below presumably because the appellant as well as this lawyer knew how an identical provision contain ed in s. 3(1) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, an allied enactment, had been judicially interpreted by in this Court in Bhagwan Dass v. Paras Nath Section 3 of the U.P. Act 3 of 1947 ran thus:"3. Restrictions on evictions.-Subject to any order passed under sub-section (3), no suit shall without the permission of the District Magistrate, be filed in any Civil Court against a tenant for his evict ion from any accommodation, except on one or more of the following grounds:(a) that the tenant is in arrears of rent for more than three months and has failed to pay the same to the landlord within one month of the service upon him of a notice of demand."This Court in Bhagwan Dass case Asupra) has explained at page 305 of the report the legal position arising on a grammatical construction of s. 3(1) thus:"Section (3) 1 does not restrict the landlords right to evict his tenant on any of the grounds mentioned in cls. (a) to (g) of that sub-section. But if he wants to sue his tenant for eviction on any ground other than those mentioned in those clauses then he has to obtain the permission of the District Magistrate whose discretion is subject to any order passed under sub-s. (3) of s . 3 by the Commissioner. These are the only restrictions placed on the power of a landlord to institute a suit for eviction of his tenant."11. It would be conducive to judicial discipline to interpret an identical provision contained in s. 14(1) of the U.P. Cantonment (Control of Rent &Eviction) Act, 1952 in a similar manner. In other words, under s. 14(1) of the concerned Central Act permission of the District Magistrate was required if the landlord sought eviction of his tenant on any ground other than those specified in cls. (a) to (f) and not when it was sought on any of the grounds specified in cls. (a) to (f). (If may be stated that both the enactments have since been repealed). It is, therefore, not possible to accept the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the instant suit filed by the respondents against the appellant could not be entertained by the Civil Court.12.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]In the instant case, additionally, there was positive evidence of the postman to the effect that the registered envelope was actually tendered by him to the appellant on November 10, 1966 but the appellant refused to ac cept. In other words, there was due service effected upon the appellant by refusal. In such circumstances, we are clearly of the view, that the High Court was right in coming to the conclusion that the appellant must be imputed with the knowledge of the contents of the notice which he refused to accept. It is impossible to accept the contention that when factually there was refusal to accept the notice on the part of the appellant he could not be visited with the knowledge of the contents of the registered notice because, in our view, the presumption raised under s. 27 of the General Clauses Act as well as under s. 114 of the Indian Evidence Act is one of proper or effective service which must mean service of everything that is contained in the notice. It is impossible to countenance the suggestion that before knowledge of the contents of the notice could be imputed the sealed envelope must be opened and read by the addressee or when the addressee happens to be an illiterate person the contents should be read over to him by the postman or someone else. Such things do not occur when the addressee is determined to decline to accept the sealed envelope. It would, therefore, be reasonable to hold that w hen service is effected by refusal of a postal communication the addressee must be imputed. with the knowledge of the contents thereof and in our view, this follows upon the presumptions that are raised under s. 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and s. 114 of the Indian Evidenceto the Bombay decision in Vaman Vithals case (supra), We would like to point out two aspects that emerge clearly from the very observations which have been strongly relied upon by counsel for the appellant. In the first place, the observations clearly show that the refusal to accept the notice was not satisfactorily proved in the case inasmuch as the postman who took the letter and brought it back had not been examined; consequently the further observations made by the leaned Chief Justice were unnecessary for decision on the point and as such will have to be regarded aswhile making those observations the learned Chief Justice WAS himself conscious of the fact that there were some authorities of that Court taking the contrary view. Having regard to these aspects it is difficult to hold that the concerned observations lay down the correct legal position in the matter. In any event we approve of the view taken by the Allahabad High Court in its three decisions, namely, Sri Naths case, Fanni Lals case and Ganga Rams case (supra) and would confirm the High Courts finding on the point in favour of theCourt in Bhagwan Dass case Asupra) has explained at page 305 of the report the legal position arising on a grammatical construction of s. 3(1)(3) 1 does not restrict the landlords right to evict his tenant on any of the grounds mentioned in cls. (a) to (g) of that sub-section. But if he wants to sue his tenant for eviction on any ground other than those mentioned in those clauses then he has to obtain the permission of the District Magistrate whose discretion is subject to any order passed under sub-s. (3) of s . 3 by the Commissioner. These are the only restrictions placed on the power of a landlord to institute a suit for eviction of hiswould be conducive to judicial discipline to interpret an identical provision contained in s. 14(1) of the U.P. Cantonment (Control of Rent &Eviction) Act, 1952 in a similar manner. In other words, under s. 14(1) of the concerned Central Act permission of the District Magistrate was required if the landlord sought eviction of his tenant on any ground other than those specified in cls. (a) to (f) and not when it was sought on any of the grounds specified in cls. (a) to (f). (If may be stated that both the enactments have since been repealed). It is, therefore, not possible to accept the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the instant suit filed by the respondents against the appellant could not be entertained by the Civil Court.