A tenant who pays rent to a co-owner of the property in good faith is protected under Section 50 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, even if the co-owner no longer has the right to receive the rent.

1. Plaintiff is the appellant. His suit for eviction of the respondent from a building was dismissed by the trial court and on appeal preferred by the appellant the lower appellate court confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court.

2. Originally the building, when the tenancy of the respondent was created, belonged to the three brothers. According to the appellant there was a partition between the three brothers in August, 1969 and the suit property was allotted in the share of Misbahur Rahman, Misbahur Rahman leased the property to the appellant on 18th of October, 1969 and a notice of the same was given to the respondent by the constituted attorney of Misbahur Rahman under registered post. The notice was received on behalf of the respondent on 12th of October, 1970. On 23rd of July, 1971 the property was transferred by Misbahur Rahman to the appellant. The respondent failed to pay the rent of the building from November, 1969. Therefore, the suit was filed on 14th of July, 1973 praying therein for eviction and also for arrears of rent from June, 1970, i.e. for three years prior to the date of filing of suit.

3. In the written statement the respondent stated that he had paid the rent up to 1972 to Masudur Rahman one of the co-owners of the property and when he came to know that the appellant had become sole owner of the same he tendered the rent for January, 1973 to him. The appellant refused the same and. therefore, the rent was remitted by Money Order and the respondent continued to remit the same. He denied the receipt of notice dated 20th October, 1969.

4. Both the courts below have held that the notice sent on 1st of May, 1973 was not served on the respondent and that the rent upto December, 1972 was validly paid by the respondent. The rent from January, 1973 and all subsequent months was validly remitted by him. On these findings, the suit was dismissed by the trial court and the appeal was also dismissed.

5. Mr. N.K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that the finding of the court below that the notice dated 1st of May, 1973 was not validly served on the respondent cannot be sustained in the eye of law inasmuch as since the notice was correctly addressed, pre-paid and sent by registered post, it shall be presumed that the same was received on behalf of the addressee, i.e. the respondent. According to the appellant since the notice was sent to the respondent with correct address, pre-paid and by registered post and as there was no denial by the respondent. D. W. 7, that the address given on the envelope was not the correct address, the courts below ought to have drawn the presumption against him and should have held that the notice was received by a person on behalf of the respondent, more so when that the respondent examined himself after acknowledgement of that notice was brought on record as Exhibit 3/A. It appears from perusal of the record that when the respondent was inducted in the building by the three brothers including the appellant the parties entered into an agreement and that was marked as Exhibit E. The address of the respondent given therein is Upper Bazar, Ranchi. In the plaint the address of the respondent is C/o. M/s. Bengal Potteries Shop, Upper Bazar, Ranchi. Therefore, according to the appellant the address of the respondent was at Upper Bazar, Ranchi. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the main road address as given on the envelope of which Exhibit 3/A is the acknowledgement was also correct address. It is true that a person may have more than one address and if it is so then a notice sent to that person at any of the addresses under registered post may be presumed, in law, to have been validly served on him. But in such a case, there must be evidence that that person has more than one address. In this case the appellant did not state in his evidence that the notice dated 29th Sept., 1970 was sent to the correct address of the respo