S. D. KHARE, J. :- In this second appeal the main point for consideration is-

What presumptions may be drawn when it is found that a combined notice of demand of rent under Section 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (3 of 1947) and Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (as amended by Act 20 of 1929) was sent by registered post by the landlord to the correct address of the tenant, but was received back by the landlord undelivered with an endorsement made by some one in the post office that the addressee had refused to take the notice on a particular day.

2. The plaintiff had not led any evidence to show that the endorsement had been made by the postman concerned. In second appeal filed by the tenant the contention is that in the absence of such evidence having been led on behalf of the plaintiff no presumption of service could be made under Section 114 of the Indian Eviction Act.

3. The appeal came up for hearing first before a learned single Judge, who formulated three points (mentioned hereinafter) for the consideration of a larger Bench. The Division Bench before which this appeal was listed noticed that there was some conflict of opinion in