Hon’ble Prakash Krishna, J.—The landlady, petitioner herein, instituted SCC suit No. 43 of 1984 against the respondent No. 2, the tenant, for his ejectment, recovery of Rs. 1,460/- towards the arrears of rent, Rs. 432/- towards the damages and Rs. 241.14 towards the house tax and water tax etc. on the ground that the defendant tenant has failed to pay the arrears of rent in pursuance of the notices dated 8.9.1983 served on 10.9.1983 and of 27th of January, 1984. The said suit was contested denying the allegations of default and also by denying the other plaint allegations. It is not necessary to refer them in detail in view of the controversy presently involved in the petition.

2. The only controversy involved in the present writ petition is whether the notice dated 8.9.1983 was served on the petitioner and if so the deposit made by the defendant who is respondent herein under Section 30 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is valid. In other words, whether the defendant tenant is a defaulter within the meaning of Section 20 (2)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 [U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972].

3. The case of the petitioner was that by means of the notice dated 8th of September, 1983, the tenant was asked to pay her the arrears of rent, taxes and electricity charges. The said notice was served on the defendant tenant on 10th of September, 1983. In spite of service of aforesaid notice, the tenant continued to deposit the rent in Misc. Case No. 38 of 1983 before the Munsif Court under Section 30 of the Act. By means of the subsequent notice dated 27th of January, 1984 again the arrears of rent was demanded. By means of the said notice tenancy was also terminated. In reply to the notice dated 27th of January, 1984, the tenant came forward with the case that he has already deposited the rent in the Misc. Case No. 38 of 1983 and therefore, there is no default. The case of the defendant tenant was that notice dated 8th of September, 1983 was never served on him.

4. The trial Court decreed the suit for ejectment by the judgment and decree dated 16th of March, 1991 and granted a decree for recovery of arrears of rent from 8th of August, 1983 to 27th of February, 1984, damages etc. The said decree has been set aside in SCC revision No. 21 of 1991 by the impugned judgment dated 9th of August, 1994. The revisional Court found that service of notice dated 8.9.1983, paper No. 69-C has not been proved and therefore, the defendant tenant has not committed any default as the rent was deposited in Misc. Case No. 38 of 1983. Secondly, it was of the view that no notice of demand under Section 30 of the Act was given by the landlady, therefore, the deposit made by the tenant under Section 30 of the Act in Misc. Case No. 38 of 1983 is valid.

5. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the finding recorded by the revisional Court that notice dated 8.9.1983 was not served, is legally unsustainable as the said notice was sent by registered post and postal receipt is already on the record. Even if the acknowledgement receipt due has not been filed, there is a presumption of valid service under law, in respect of registered articles. He further submits that there is no requirement of giving notice under Section 30 of the Act. Elaborating the argument, he submits that no information or notice was served by the Munsif Court informing the landlady that the rent is being deposited under Section 30 of the Act by the tenant. In response, the learned Counsel for the tenant supports the impugned judgment.

6. The first question which requires consideration is whether the finding of the revisional Court that notice dated 8th of September, 1983 was not served is legally sustainable. The said notice was sent by registered post and the postal receipt is on the record, as noted by the trial Judge. In this Court alongwith rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has filed a copy of letter dated 3rd of Decemb