( 1 ) RAVI Raghuramaiah, the unsuccessful defendant being aggrieved by the reversing judgment and decree made in A. S. No. 8/2000 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, gajuwaka, setting aside the Judgment and decree made in O. S. No. 336/99 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka, had preferred the present Second Appeal.

( 2 ) SHRI D. V. Sitaram Murthy, Counsel representing the appellant had pointed out the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether the lower appellate Court was justified in drawing presumption under Section 114 of the Indian evidence Act 1872 and Section 27 of the A. P. General Clauses Act with reference to service of quit notice by the postman when the postman was examined as P. W. 2 and his evidence was on record. (2) Whether the Court below was justified in declaring Section 14 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 as not mandatory. (3) Whether the landlady had not waived her right in view of the acceptance of amounts. The learned Counsel while elaborating his submissions would maintain that the presumption available in relation to service of notice is only a rebuttable presumption and when the postman was examined as p. W. 2 and his evidence was not trustworthy the Court of first instance was justified in dismissing the suit and the appellate Court had totally erred in reversing the well considered Judgment of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka. The Counsel also would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case when the alleged service was not done in accordance with the statute, then it should be taken that there was non-service and hence the landlady is bound to fail. The Counsel made certain submissions in relation to Section 14 of the indian Post Office Act 1898 and had taken this Court through the evidence of P. W. 2 as well. The Counsel also had pointed out certain niceties to be examined in the case of quit notice and would contend that in the light of the facts and circumstances it should be taken that there was no service of notice. The learned Counsel also contended that inasmuch as the rents had been accepted subsequent to the issuance of notice, it should be taken that the landlady had waived her right to seek the relief of eviction. The learned Counsel placed reliance on flam Dayal v. Jawala Prasatf, Sharad v. Vishnif and M/s. Surajmull v. Samadarshar in this regard.

( 3 ) PER contra Sri V. Ravinder Rao, counsel representing the respondent/ landlady had pointed out to the refusal endorsement and also had taken this Court through Section 14 of the Indian Post Office act, 1898 and had explained that at any stretch of imagination the said provision cannot be held to be mandatory and inasmuch as refusal had been recorded, the evidence of P. W. 2 is clear and categorical. The Counsel also would maintain that when a presumption is available, though a rebuttable presumption, the mere fact that the postman was further examined cannot dilute the rigor of availability of the presumption in favour of the landlady. The counsel no doubt had stated that after determination, towards damages without prejudice to her contentions, the landlady had encashed the demand drafts and definetly it would not amount to waiver. The counsel had explained relating to realization of the amount after filing of the suit. At any rate, the Counsel would contend that this defence is taken only with a view to prolong the litigation. Reliance also was placed on saladi Srirama Murthy v. K. Swaminaidu4, ram Shree v. Khadija Bibp, State of Madras v. K. N. Shanmugha Mudaliar3, Ram Autar v. Savitri Devi7 and P. Lakshmanchandji v. V. V. S. R. Murthy1.

( 4 ) HEARD both the Counsel and perused the findings recorded by the Court of first instance and the findings recorded by the appellate Court.

( 5 ) SMT. Koneru Rama Tulasamma, the landlady filed a suit O. S. No. 802/97 on the file of II Additional District Munsif, visakhapatnam which was numbered as o. S. No. 336/99 on the file of Junior Civi