The main legal point established is that the notice requirements under Section 21(1)(a) must be strictly adhered to, and the service of notice must comply with the provisions of the Act to sustain a claim for eviction.

SHIVA PRAKASH, J.

( 1 ) THIS second Revision under Section 115 of the C. P. C. , is presented by the tenant aggrieved by the order passed by the first Revisional Court allowing the petition of the landlord under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('act' for short ).

( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are as follows: The eviction petition was instituted by the landlord under Section 21 (1) (a) and (h) of the Act. The trial Court rejected the claim made by the landlord under Section 21 (1) (h) of the Act. But in so far as the claim made under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act, the trial Court found that the actual rate of rent was Rs. 15/- per month and the tenant was in arrears of rent to the extent of Rs. 140/ -. The trial Court gave one month's time to the tenant to make payment. Aggrieved by the said order of the trial Court, the landlord preferred revision under Section 50 of the Act to the District Court at Shimoga.

( 3 ) BEFORE the first revisional Court the landlord gave up his claim under Section 21 (1) (h), but confined his claim only under Section 21 (1) (a) and questioned the correctness of the order passed by the trial Court in granting one month's time to the tenant to pay arrears of rent of Rs. 140/ -.

( 4 ) THE contention of the landlord before the first, revisional Court was that when once the Court found that the tenant was in arrears of rent and that he did not make payment of the same despite issue of statutory notice in terms of Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act, grant of further time by the trial court to pay the arrears is not in terms of the aforesaid provision. This submission made on behalf of the landlord has been accepted by the first revisional Court and the petition filed by the landlord under Section 21 (1) (a) has been allowed.

( 5 ) IT appears from the order of the first revisional Court, that in the first instance, the notice in terms of Section 21 (1) (a) had been sent to the tenant by the first respondent herein. In response to the said notice the tenant sent a reply stating that he had taken the premises on lease from the second respondent and not from the first respondent. Subsequently, both the respondents who are brothers, appear to have sent another notice by registered post to the tenant. According to them the tenant avoided service of notice sent by registered post. While sending the notice by registered post both the respondents had also sent a copy of the said notice under Certificate of posting. It was contended before the first revisional Court that even though the notice sent under registered post had been returned unserved, the notice sent under Certificate of Posting must have been received by the tenant.

( 6 ) SRI M. R. Rajagopal, learned Counsel appearing for respondent-1, submitted that in terms of section 114 (f) of the Indian Evidence Act there is always a presumption that notice posted under certificate of Posting has been received by the addressee. This submission which was made before the first revisional Court has been accepted, and the first revisional Court has concluded that the notice sent under Certificate of Posting must have been received by the tenant, and despite receipt of such notice if the tenant has not paid the arrears of rent within the time stipulated under Section 21 (1) (a), question of granting further time did not arise.

( 7 ) SRI H. K. Shetty, learned Counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, contended that certificate of Posting does not establish that the notice sent has been received by the tenant. He submitted that Certificate of Posting merely evidences the fact of posting of a certain postal article and it is no proof of the fact that the notice sent under Certificate of Posting has been received by the addressee. In this regard, the learned Counsel for the tenant relied on two decisions of this Court.

( 8 ) IN BASHETTIYAVAR BROS, v. IV. T. C. HUBLI, 1982 (1) KLJ 447, this Court has ruled that a Certificate of Pos

Click Here to Read the rest of this document