( 1 ) THE petitioners are the legal representatives of the original tenant Smt. Vatsala Krishna Jadhav. The respondent is the landlady. The premises consist of one room situated at Kurar Village, Daftary Road, Malad (East), Mumbai. The original tenant Smt. Vatsala Jadhav died during the pendency of the suit and, therefore, the petitioners-heirs are brought on the record. The suit filed by the landlady on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent, and unauthorised permanent alteration, was dismissed by the The Court of small Causes at Bombay (for short "trial court" ). The Appellate Court, however, allowed the same and decree for possession has been granted in favour of the respondent-landlady against the petitioners-tenant. Therefore, the present Writ Petition by the petitioners.

( 2 ) THE petitioners failed to deposit the rent regularly and were in arrears since 1 st october, 1975. After due notice, the respondent-landlady filed the suit in the Trial court. After considering the evidence led by the parties, the Trial Court held that the petitioner-tenant was a willful defaulter, but dismissed the suit by holding that there was no valid notice under Section 12 (2) of the Bombay rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (for short "the Bombay rent Act" ).

( 3 ) ALL other grounds were also dismissed. In the present case, the landlady- respondent had adopted three modes of services to serve the legal notice. Firstly, the notice dated 1st April, 1976, was sent by registered post acknowledgement due (RP/ad); secondly, the notice was sent Under Certificate of Posting (UCP) and thirdly, one copy of the notice was pasted on the outer door of the suit premises on 02-05-1976. As per the evidence of the respondent-landlady DW1, the registered notice was sent to the petitioner on a given address which returned with postal remarks "unclaimed". There is an additional remark stating "intimation" and there was a third postal remark "not claimed" dated 3rd April, 1976. The said packet was returned with unsigned acknowledgment which shows that the said packet was not received by the defendant- petitioner.

( 4 ) SO far as the packet which was sent by UCP, had not returned back. The service by pasting on the outer door of the premises was supported by DW1. Admittedly, no Postman was examined in this matter. The trial Court, therefore, rejected the suit of the landlady for want of service of valid demand notice.

( 5 ) THE Appellate Court in the Appeal, based on the same material and evidence on the record, quashed and set aside the said order passed by the Trial Court and decreed the suit, as prayed, basically by holding that there was a valid termination of tenancy by the said notice as the packet had returned with the endorsements "unclaimed'', "intimation" and "not claimed". The same supports the case of the landlady in view of the basic presumption as available under Section 27 of the Bombay general Clauses Act read with Section 114 of the Evidence Act. The unreturned packet of ucp of the same demand notice on the same correct address also supports the landlady's case based on the presumption of law in such circumstances. The finding of the Appellate court, as referred below, supports the respondent-landlady's case.

"he admits in his cross-examination that the addresses shows on the documents, Ex. A colly. , i. e. to say notice, postal receipt and r. P. A. D. and envelope are correct. He has stated that the original Defendant did not tell him in respect of unclaiming of registered packet. He does not know whether the original Defendant had received the copy of notice sent under certificate of posting. "

"apart from this, the R. P. A. D. , part of Ex. A colly, shows that the same was sent by r. P. A. D. on 01-04-1976. Postal endorsement on R. P. A. D. , part of Ex. A colly, shows that it was not claimed by the addressee and it was sent back to the sender. From the registered packet, part of Ex. A colly. , it is clear th