The court clarified the modes of service of notice of demand under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and the presumptions of delivery under section 114(f) of the Evidence Act and section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, in the context of eviction proceedings under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

( 1 ) THE respondent landlord filed a petition for eviction against the appellant tenant on the ground that the tenant had not paid arrears of rent from 17-12-1960. Clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) requires the landlord to serve a notice of demand for the arrears of rent on the tenant in the manner provided in section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the relevant part of which runs as follows:-

"every notice under this section must be in writing, signed by or on behalf of the person giving it, and either be sent by post to the party who is intended to be bound by it or be tendered or delivered personally to such party, or to one of his family or servants, at his residence, or if such tender or delivery is not practicable affixed to a conspicuous part of the property. "it will be seen that three alternative modes of service of notice are contemplated therein, namely:-

(1) by post, (2) by delivery to the addressee or to one of his family or servants at his residence, and (3) by affixation to a conspicuous part of the property.

( 2 ) THE landlord adopted all the three modes. Firstly, the notice of demand dated 11-12-1964 was sent to the tenant at the address of the premises in which he lived under a certificate of posting which is Exhibit A5. Secondly, it was sent by registered post. But the registered envelop was returned with remarks that nobody from inside gave a reply and, therefore, the cover was being returned. The cover was, however, returned on 21-12- 1964. But before the return, the registered letter was taken to the house of the tenant on the 15th, 16th and 17th of December 1964. As it could not be delivered to the addressee on the 17th December 1964, a copy of the notice was affixed by the landlord to the house of the tenant in the presence of the landlord s lawyer.

( 3 ) THE Controller as well as the Rent Control Tribunal held that the notice of demand had been properly served. The petition for eviction was, therefore, in order under clause (a) of the A proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act, As the tenant had already enjoyed the benefit of section 14 (2) of the Act, an order for eviction was passed by the Controller and was upheld by the Rent Control Tribunal.

( 4 ) SHRI Yogeshwar Dayal for the appellant tenant in this second appeal urged that the notice of demand had not been properly served. Regarding the first method of service, namely, the posting of the notice under certificate of posting on 11-12-1964, learned counsel argued that the notice was not received by the tenant. Under section 114 Illustration (f) of the Evidence Act. there is a presumption that the common course of business has been followed in particular cases including this case of delivery of the letter by the postman to the addressee. It is well known that letters are delivered into the residence of the addressee and not personally to the addressee. The tenant was said to be out of town. If, so, the members of his family who were said to be residing in the premises should have received the letter in the common course of business. Learned counsel argued that the tenant went into the witness-box to deny that he received the letter and such denial should be sufficient to rebut the presumption raised by section 114 (f) of the Evidence Act. He relied on a short-note report of a decision by Falshaw, C. J. in Bhagwanti v. Waryum Singh, 1965 PLR 12 (Short Notes of Cases) (1 ). In that case, the registered letter had been returned with the remark endorsed by the postman that the addressee had refused to accept the same. The learned. Judge was of the view that the addressee could not produce any evidence other than his own that he has not refused to accept the letter. After such denial, it was for the sender of the letter to show that the addressee had refused to accept the letter. The Punjab decision is not in point. The