JUDGMENT :- This is a tenant's Second Appeal from the concurrent decrees of the Courts below for his ejectment from a shop. The defendant appellant Asa Ram is the tenant of the shop of which the plaintiff-respondent is the landlord. The plaintiff obtained the permission of the commissioner under S. 3 of the U.P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act to eject the appellant and after terminating the tenancy filed this suit.

2. The only argument advanced by Mr. K.M. Sinha for the appellant is that the Courts below erred in presuming that the notice terminating the tenancy was received by the appellant and refused. It appears that the landlord sent the notice by registered post but it was returned by the Post Office with the endorsement refused.

Mr. Sinha contends that after the appellant had denied receipt of notice, the presumption was rebutted. I cannot agree. The appellant's denial was not sufficient to rebut the presumption unless he was believed by the Court, but he was not. This question was considered at length in Wasu Ram v. R.L. Sethi, 1963 All WR (HC) 472. Counsel for the respondent states that the principle of law laid down in that case was recently approved by a Bench of this Court in Kanhaiya Lal v. Smt. Savitri Devi, Second Appeal No. 518 of 1962 (All).

3. Mr. Sinha then argued that a presumption of refusal could arise only if the endorsement 'refused' was proved by evidence, and this could only be done by producing the postman who made the endorsement. I do not agree. If the landlord deposes that he sent an envelope containing the notice and that the same envelope was received by him with the endorsement 'refused' which was not there before and he produces the envelope with the

endorsement, this is a sufficient evidence to prove the endorsement. In this case the respondent appeared as a witness and proved the sending and the return of the envelope. On this evidence the Court could rely on the presumption authorised under S. 114 of the Evidence Act.

4. No other point was urged. The appeal is dismissed with costs. The order staying the ejectment of the appellant is vacated.

Appeal dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document