A notice to quit is valid if it contains a demand for rent, a statement that the tenancy will be terminated if the rent is not paid within a specified period, and an intention to file a suit for ejectment if the tenant does not vacate the premises.

( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the judgment and decree of Sri R. K. Rastogi, IV Addl. District Judge, Jhansi dated 7-1-1984 who decreed plaintiffs suit while functioning as Judge small Cause Court.

( 2 ) IT was a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation.

( 3 ) IT was averred that defendant was tenant of the shop in dispute belonging to plaintiff No. 1 on a monthly rent of Rs. 200/ -. Tenancy used to commence from the first date of every month of english calendar and used to expire on the last date of the month.

( 4 ) RENT remained unpaid from 1-5-1980 up to 30-10-1980 despite notice dated 5-11-1980 served on defendant on 12-1 1-1980. It was also a notice to vacate the premises and determine the tenancy. Defendant neither paid the rent nor vacated the premises; Hence the suit.

( 5 ) PENDING the proceedings plaintiff No. 1 sold the disputed shop to her son, plaintiff No. 2.

( 6 ) DEFENDANT contested the suit on the ground that agreement was to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month; Rs. 200/- per month were payable in case the walls of the shop were made pucca; plaintiff did not carry out the part of her agreement despite demand pressed by the tenant who had already paid the rent up to 1-5-1980; tenant also served a notice on 16-6-1980 through his Advocate on plaintiff to carry out her promise; she did not comply. The notice of demand dt. 5-11-1980 was invalid and did not terminate the tenancy; no rent was due.

( 7 ) LEARNED trial Judge scrutinised evidence adduced by the parties and found under issue No. 1 that the rate of rent was Rs. 200/- per month; he further found under Issue No. 2 that the defendant was a defaulter in payment of rent. He further found under Issue No. 3 that defendant did receive notice dt. 5-11-1980; he further found that the said notice was valid; he further found that the plaintiffs were entitled to the reliefs sought.

( 8 ) AGGRIEVED by this decision defendant has filed this revision.

( 9 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

( 10 ) ON behalf of revisionist it was argued that notice dt. 5-11-1980 sent by plaintiffs was not served on defendant.

( 11 ) IN this connection it was pointed out that defendant in his statement denied the receipt of the notice ; the postman who served notice original of which is Ext. 1, sent through the registered post at the address vide postal receipt Ext. II was not examined; the acknowledgment due showing the receipt of the notice was not filed. Under the circumstances learned trial Judge erred in holding that the notice had been served on the tenant. It was further pointed out that although a notice to quit sent by registered post returned to the sender with the remark refused is presumed to have been served on the addressee if the correct address is given it is also true that mere denial by the addressee was not always sufficient to rebut the presumption as held in Jamal khan v. Haji Yusuf Ali reported in 1978 All LJ 993 but such presumption under Section 27 of general Clauses Act, 1897 or under Section 114 of Evidence Act could not be available to the land lady when the acknowledgment due is not on record; even the original notice is not on record; containing any endorsement of refusal.

( 12 ) IN Amarnath v. Smt. Champa Devi, reported in 1978 All WC 84 : (1978 All LJ 44) notice to quit was sent by registered post and was received back with the endorsement refusal. Address given on the envelop was correct. It was held that such presumption would be of service of notice but if the tenant stated on oath that no notice was delivered to him nor he refused to take any notice nor tenant was cross-examined nor there existed any circumstance on record on the basis of which his statement could be discredited. Such presumption of service of notice stands rebutted by statement of tenant. Ram Nakshatra Misra v. Girdhar Das Kashya reported in 1979 u. P. R. C. C. 5 was also cite