( 1 ) THE facts of this revision are that petitioner filed an application in the Court of the Rent Controller Delhi, against respondent U/s 25 B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 seeking his eviction from her house No. D-53 Hauz Khas, New Delhi. The respondent moved an application for leave to defend which was granted to him on 3-4-1978. He filed written statement contesting the petition on several grounds. Controller by his order dt. 1. 12. 78, dismissed the eviction petition. He held that petitioner is in bonafide requirement of the premises but rejected the application on the ground that the service of notice U/s 106 TPA is not proved and that the application related only to a part of the premises. Hence, this revision by the land lady.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent contended at the very outset that no revision lies against the impugned order. But, this contention cannot be accepted. This court has been of the view that revision contemplated by the proviso of Sec. 25 B (8) does not lie against any order rejecting or accepting the prayer for leave to defend the suit, and lies only against an order accepting or rejecting an eviction application, vide Devi Singh v. Chaman Lal, 1977. Rajdhani L. R. 566, Bhagawati Prasad v. Om Prakash, 1979, Raj. L. R. 26, Mahavir Singh V. Kamal Narain, 1979, Raj. L. R. 159 and I. R. K. Parikh v. Uma Verma, l978. Raj. L. R. 592. The present revision has been filed against the order dismissing the application for eviction and it is therefore maintainable. The first contention is rejected.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent then wanted to defend the impugned order on the ground that the notice of termination of the tenancy was not served upon the tenant. The case of the petitioner was that two registered notices were sent to the tenant, but they were returned "refused". She tendered in evidence only one of the registered envelopes bearing the endorsement "refused" of March 9,1979. Under the proviso of Sec. 106 T P. Act, a notice of termination of the tenancy can be sent by post. When this is done, as was done in this case, then in virtue of Sec. 27 of General Clauses Act, 1897, unless the contrary is proved the service shall be deemed to have been affected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post. According to illustration (f) of Sec. 114, Evidence Act, the court may presume in such a case that the letter was received by the addressee unless it is shown that the usual course of the post was interupted by disturbances. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that no doubt a presumption is raised against the respondent but this presumption stood rebutted when he deposed that no notice was brought to him by any postman, nor did he refuse any registered letter and, in such a case it was necessary for the petitioner to prove the endorsement of refusal by calling the postal peon or someone to prove his handwriting. He relies upon Parshotam Lal V. Kalyan Singh AIR 1971 J. and K. 20 and Jagat Ram v. Battu Moll AIR 1976 (Delhi 111. But om Puwada Rao v. C. V. Ramanan AIR 1976 S. C. 869, it was observed that when notice sent by registered post is returned with endorsement "refused" it is not always necessary to produce the postman who tried to effect service. A denial of service by a party may be found to be incorrect from its demonstration of conduct. In M. P. Swami v. Mangaram AIR 1979 Ori 11, it was held that when a notice sent by post in a registered cover is returned by the postman with the endorsement that the addressee refused to receive it and the pasting of notice has been proved, there arises the presumption U/s 1 14, of Evidence Act that the addressee did refuse to receive it even though the postman has not been produced to prove tender and act of refusal. Undoubtedly the presumption is one of the fact and rebuttable. It can never be regarded as conclusive and can be rebutted by mere denial on oath by the addressee only i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document