JUDGMENT - A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.:---By this writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the judgment of the 5th Additional District Judge, Thane, dated 19th November, 1988 in Civil Appeal No. 48 of 1987.

2. Briefly stated the petitioner-landlord institued a suit against the respondent-tenant for eviction and possession of the suit premises along with arrears on the ground that the respondent-tenant had committed default and was in arrears for more than 6 months within the meaning of section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act.

3. The short question that arises in the present writ petition is that whether the suit notices Exhibits 40 and 47 dated 6-6-1981 were duly served on the respondent-tenant? This question assumes relevance in view of the mandatory requirement of section 12 of the Bombay Rent Act which postulates that no suit for recovery of possession could be instituted by the landlord against the tenant on the ground of non payment of standard rent or permitted increases due until the expiration of one month next after the notice in writing of the demand of standard rent or permitted increases has been served upon the tenant in the manner provided in section 106 of Transfer of Property Act 1882.

4. The petitioner-landlord went to the Court with a specific case that the suit notices were sought to be served on the respondent-tenant by two modes viz. by registered post and by under certificate of posting. In so far as notice sent by registered post is concerned the record indicates that the same was returned back with postal remarks "not claimed"; whereas the notice sent by under certificate of posing was not received back by the petitioner-landlord for which reason it is contended that it should be presumed that the said notice must have been received by the respondent-tenant. The respondent-tenant on the other hand has denied service of any notice of either of the aforesaid modes. In backdrop of the rival stand the matter has been adjudicated by the courts below.

5. The trial Court was pleased to decree the suit against the respondent by holding that the suit notice was duly served on the respondent and inspite of service he failed to tender the rent within one month or raise any dispute regarding standard rent and thus was liable to be evicted within the meaning of section 12(3)(a) of Rent Act. This conclusion has been reversed by the lower Appellate Court in the impugned judgment. The lower Appellate Court has held that neither the notice sent by registered post nor through under certificate of posting can be said to be duly served for there being no circumstance to presume that service has been effected on the respondent-tenant. Having held that the suit notice was not duly served on the respondent-tenant the Appellate Court proceeded to reverse the decree, since, in its view, rightly, no suit could be maintained against the tenant on the ground of non payment of rent unless the tenant is duly served with the suit notice and given an opportunity to tender rent and/or raise dispute regarding standard rent within one month from the date of service.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that the Court below was wrong in reversing the decree and upsetting the finding of fact of valid service of the suit notice. In his submission, notice sent by registered post, though returned with postal endorsement as "not claimed", should be treated as duly served. In support of his submission he relies on provisions of section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act read with section 27 of the General Clauses Act as well as section 114 of the Evidence Act. In the first place, the learned Counsel contends that section 12 of the Bombay Rent Act mandates that notice should be sent, but the mode of its service is to be found from the provisions of section 106 of the T.P. Act. According to him, it is enough for the landlord to send the notice by post, which can by way of r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document