( 1 ) WHEN these second appeals against orders came up before Deshpande J. , either at the stage of admission or at the time of hearing, he REFERRED TO them to a larger Bench in view of the decision of Kapur J. in Kaku Mall v. Smt. Dharmi Devi (S. A. O. No. 417 of 1968) decided on February 5, 1971

( 2 ) IN the case dealt with by Kapur J. , a notice was sent by registered acknowledgement due post by the counsel (Mr. G. R. Chopra, Advocate) for the landlord to the tenant. It was returned with the remark " refused". Kapur J. noticed that there was nothing to show from the envelope that it contained a notice from the landlord and he observed:-

"the refusal of the notice by the tenant, even if it is established. could not be deemed to be the refusal of a notice by the tenant unless there was something on the envelope itself or on the acknowledgement due receipt attached to it, to indicate that it was from the landlord. "

( 3 ) THE notice in this case was one of demand for arrears of rent under clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which required it to be served in the manner provided in section 106 of the Transfer o