IMPORTANT POINT
Eviction Notice – If services are made through Registered Post, it is deemed to have been made in accordance with law.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KAROL, J.

Leave Granted.

2. The present appeal arises from the final judgment and order dated 7th October 2016, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Revision No.22 of 2012, whereby the judgment and order dated 26th November 2011 passed in S.C.C. Suit No.23 of 2000 by the Additional District Judge, Hathras, was set aside.

3. The principle question of law that falls for consideration of this Court in the present litigation is whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the ejectment decree passed by the Trial Court in favour of the appellant on the sole ground that the notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, was not served upon the respondent, as the postal letter was returned with endorsement “ND” which denotes “Not Delivered”.

4. Brief facts giving rise to the appeal are:

4.1. Appellant is the landlord of a property situated at Sadabad Gate, Agra Road in Hathras¹[hereinafter referred to as “Suit Property”]. The respondent took the suit property on rent at Rs.3,000/- per month, including the water tax and house tax. The said tenancy begins from the first date of the English month and ends on the last date of the same month. The tenant failed to deposit the rent for the period from 1st June 1999 to 11th September 2000, totaling to a sum of Rs.38,416/- along with Rs.3,841/- towards water tax and Rs.3,841/- towards house tax.

4.2 On the default of the respondent herein in paying the rent and other occupational charges, the appellant issued legal notices dated 12th September 2000 and 1st November 2000 through Registered A.D. Post asking the respondent to make good the default; to deposit the outstanding amount along with interest @ 10% per annum thereon; to pay expenses towards legal notice; and also to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property.

5. The proceedings before the Civil Judge, Hathras, began on 06th December 2000. Summons were issued to the respondent on 12th February 2001. No appearance was entered. On 13th April 2001, it was recorded that the service through the Registry was deemed sufficient and the proceedings against the respondent would continue ex-parte. For the next so many dates, no progress was made in the matter. Parties to the lis filed various applications, which did not lead to any constructive outcome. The order sheet of 27th October 2004 records that the defendant had not filed his written statement and, therefore, the suit would proceed ex-parte. On 17th February 2005, both parties were present. An application under Order IX Rule 7 was filed stating that on the day his right to file a written statement was closed, he had to, on account of a medical emergency, rush to Agra. The Court, however, refused to accept this contention on the ground that the service of notice was completed on 13th April 2001, yet, as on 27th October 2004, he had not filed his counterclaim nor had he filed a written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 and Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908²[Hereinafter referred to as “CPC”]. The order dated 25th March 2006 records the opposing submissions of the learned Advocates for the parties, with the landlord saying that no rent had been deposited till the said date; on the other hand, the tenant submitted that an ‘Out of Court Compromise’ had been entered into between the parties and in accordance with which the amounts due uptil October 2005, stood paid. The only amount outstanding was in respect of five months, for which period the tenant was ready and willing to deposit the rent in the Court. The Court recorded that the tenant could save himself from eviction and also submit his written statement, should he pay Rs.300/- as costs to the landlord and also deposit the remaining amount in the Court.

6. On the next date, an adjournment was sought by the tenant on account of the fact that the revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 25th March 2006. Adjournment, however, was rejected, and the date