The main legal point established in the judgment is the presumption of service under section 27 of the General Clauses Act and the requirement for sufficient evidence to rebut such presumption.

T. S. THAKUR, J, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for possession and recovery of rent and mesne profits/damages for unauthorized occupation of the demised premises. The court below has decreed the suit for possession by eviction of the appellant-tenant and for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,80,500/-representing the arrears of rent upto 31st October, 2002 and mesne profits @ rs. 15,000/- per month w. e. f. 1st November, 2002 till the defendant appellant delivers the possession of the premises to the plaintiff. Interest pendente lite and till realisation on the decretal amount has also been awarded.

( 2 ) A premises comprising the ground floor portion of property bearing No. B-1/7-A, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110063 was leased out to the defendant-appellant by the plaintiff-respondent at a monthly rent of Rs. 9,500/- w. e. f. 1st february, 1999. The plaintiff's case as set out in the plaint was that the defendant deposited security equivalent to one month's rent and paid rent for one month to the plaintiff amounting in all to Rs. 19,000/- but did not pay any amount thereafter. Consequently, rent for the period 1st March, 1999 onwards fell in arrears against the defendant-appellant who instead of liquidating the liability, dragged the plaintiff into unnecessary litigation by filing a suit for injunction against him in March, 2002. An order was in that suit passed by this court on the original side on 5th May, 2003 directing the tenant to pay to the plaintiff the admitted rent. Despite the said direction also, the defendant-tenant did not pay the arrears of rent due from him. The plaintiff had, in the meantime, terminated the tenancy of the defendant in terms of a notice served upon the defendant not only by registered AD and UPC but also through a courier. The service of the notice notwithstanding, the defendant continued in unauthorized occupation of the demised premises forcing the plaintiff to file a suit for his eviction and for recovery of the arrears of rent from June, 2000 till 31st October, 2002 when the tenancy was terminated. Rent for the period prior to June, 2002 was given up by the plaintiff and mesne profits claimed @ Rs. 15,000/- per month from November, 2002 till May, 2003 amounting to Rs. 1,05,000/ -. A decree for Rs. 3,80,500/- was thus prayed for by the plaintiff with interest @12% per annum and costs besides possession of the demised premises.

( 3 ) THE suit was contested by the defendant on several grounds giving rise to the following six issues : (i)Whether the present suit of the plaintiff is barred by the limitation" OPD (ii)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of the possession" OPP (iii)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of Rs. 3,80,500/- as rent/mesne profits/damages for unauthorised use and occupation of the suit property w. e. f. 1. 3. 99" OPP (iv)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the future damages if so what rate and from which period" OPP (v)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the interest if so what rate and from which period" OPP (vi)Relief.

( 4 ) IN support of its case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 apart from Raj Kumar Dhingra PW-2, Maha Singh PW-3, Manoj Kumar Sharma PW-4 and Ramesh kumar Kcharra PW-5. In rebuttal, the defendant examined himself as DW-1.

( 5 ) BY the judgment and order impugned in this appeal, the trial court found issue No. 1 against the defendant. The court held that while the claim for arrears of rent w. e. f. 1st March, 1999 to 30th May, 2000 had become time barred, the claim for the subsequent period from June, 2000 onwards was within the period of three years prescribed for that purpose.

( 6 ) SIMILARLY, issue No. 2 was also found in favour of the plaintiff. The court held that the testimony of the plaintiff and those of his witnesses, when seen in the light of the documentary evidence comprising the postal receipt showing despatch of the notice and the AD cards, clearly established that notice marked Ex