The presumption of due service applies when a notice is sent by registered post and is returned with specific postal endorsements, as established by relevant legal provisions and case laws.

JUDGMENT

Biswajit Basu, J. - These two second appeals are at the instance of the defendant/tenant in two suits for eviction. Both the appeals have been admitted under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure to answer the following common substantial questions of law, as such are taken up for analogous hearing and disposal:-

'1. Whether the Courts below were justified in passing a decree for eviction under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, when the plaintiff/ respondent had failed to prove the effectuation of service of notice upon the defendant/ appellant?

2. Whether the Courts below were justified in passing a decree for eviction when the registered envelop addressed to the defendant came back with endorsement 'addressee out of station'?

3. If the postal article returned with the postal remarks 'addressee out of station', whether any presumption of due service can be raised under Section 27 of the West Bengal General Clauses Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act?'

2. The appellant was a tenant under the respondent in respect of two tenancies comprised in L.R. Plot No. 213 under Mouza Kamrangoo District. Howrah. The plaintiff filed the said two suits before the 5th Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Howrah for eviction of the appellant from the said two tenancies. The said suits being Title Suit No. 12 of 2016 and Title Suit No. 13 of 2016 were decreed on May 03, 2018 and May 02, 2018 respectively. The defendant challenged the said two decrees in two appeals being Title Appeal No. 132 of 2018 and Title Appeal No. 131 of 2018. The 3rd Court of learned Additional District Judge, Howrah by the judgments and decrees, both dated February 28, 2019 has dismissed the said two appeals. S.A. 209 of 2019 is directed against the appellate decree passed in the said Title Appeal No. 131 of 2018 and S.A. 210 of 2019 is directed against the appellate decree passed in Title Appeal No. 132 of 2018.

3. The tenancies of the appellant were not protected by the rent control legislation i.e. The West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. The appellant though tried to dispute the ownership of the respondent over the suit properties but the learned Trial Judge on evidence found that the jural relationship of tenant-landlord between the appellant and the respondent is an admitted position. The appeal Court below by the impugned judgments and decrees has affirmed the said findings of the learned Trial Judge. To answer the substantial questions of law formulated in the present second appeals and there being no challenge either to the said concurrent findings of the Courts below, the said issue need not be re-opened.

4. The facts relevant to answer the formulated substantial questions of law are thus, the said two tenancies of the defendant were determined by two separate fifteen days' notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 both dated November 18, 2015 but the said notices returned to the plaintiff with the postal endorsement 'even after several dates the addressee is out of station'. Identical prior notices dated October 07, 2015 were also returned to the plaintiff with the similar postal endorsement. The plaintiff claiming determination of the said tenancies of the defendant by the said second notices filed the said eviction suits.

5. The defendant in his written statements denied that his tenancies were determined by the said notices dated November 18, 2015. The defendant asserted that no notice of eviction was sent to the defendant in any material point of time, so the suit must fail for proper cause of action and the comments of the postal endorsement is absolutely incorrect, illegal and has not vitiated the actual state of affairs and it is absolutely collusive with the postal Peon as the relative of the plaintiff is a political person holding a powerful chair of the well-known political party and taking said advantage, the plaintiff collusively with the postal Peon allegedly written as 'even after seve