( 1 ) THIS is a second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") filed by the tenant-Smt. Raj Rani against the order of eviction dated 29th October, 1977 passed by an Additional Rent Controller and confirmed by the Rent Control Tribunal in appeal vide judgment dated 27th February, 1981.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to this appeal in brief are that the appellant-Smt, Raj Rani is a tenant in respect of a portion of property bearing No. 149-151, Block No. I, Vishwasnagar,karkariroad,sarwariamarket,shahdara, Delhi under the respondent Shri Gian Chand. The landlord moved an application for eviction of the appellant on 7th November, 1975 on the groun of (i) non-payment of rent ; (ii) bonafide personal requirement aand residence ; and (iii) causing substantial damage to the demised premises falling under Clauses (a), (e) and (j) respectively of the proviso to Section 14 (1) of the Act. The eviction petition was resisted by the appellant on various grounds but it was eventually allowed by the Additional Rent Controloler on the grounds of non-payment of rent and bonafide personal reequirement. owever, the appellant having complied with an order made by the Additional Rent Controller under Section 15 (1) of the Act, she was held entitled to benefit of Section 14 (2) of the Act, it being a case of first default. The eviction petition was, however, dismissed as regards the ground of causing damage to the demised premises.

( 3 ) FEELING aggrieved the tenant preferred an appeal from the order of eviction in the Court of the Rent Control Tribunal but met with no success. Hence this second appeal.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned order on various grounds. He has at the outset contended that there was no proper and valid service of the notice of demand which is a condition precedent to the maintainability of eviction petition on the ground of non payment of rent. The predse contention sought to be raised is that the appellant was out of Delhi during the period 4th June, 1975 to 4th July 1975 when the impugned notice of demand, daled 21st June, 1975 Ex. A. I was allegedly tendered and delivered to her by the postman. Hence, according to her, the question of any refusal to receive the notice on her part did not arise. In order to prove the factum of service of notice the respondent-land- lord besides tendering the postal receipt Ex. A3, the original envelope containing the notice of demand Ex. A4 and the certificate of posting Ex. A2, examined the postman of the area Shri Satinder Kumar as AW4. The latter deposed that he knew the appellant as he was visiting that area every day. In June 1975 he tendered the registered letter to the appellant but she refused the same and, therefore, he recorded the remark Ex. AW4/a "refused" in his own hand and signed the same. During crosi-examination he explained that he tried to deliver the aforesaid letter to the appellant every day during 23rd June to 27th June, 1975 but he was unable to meet the appellant. However, he met the appellant ultimately on 28th June 1975 when she refused to have the letter. He denied the suggestion that she was away to Bombay on 28th June, 1975. As against this, there is the testimony of the appellant herself and her daughter Misi Veena to the effect that she had gone to Bombay at the relevant time. According to the appellant, she used to visit Bombay quite often as her relations live there. She explained that she left all her children in the premises in dispute while going to Bombay. According to Miss Veena, it wai she to whom the reistered etter in question was tendered by the postman but the declined to receive the same because her mother was out of station. The courts below have believed the testimony of the postman on this point saying that both the appellant and her daughter are highly interested witnesses and no reliance could be placed on their word of mouth in the absence of