JUDGEMENT :- This is a tenant's second appeal from the decree of the Ist Additional Civil Judge Agra confirming the decree for his ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent from him. The appellants were joint tenants of the accommodation in dispute and fell into arrears of rent. The landlord served a notice which has become familiar in this State as a combined notice of demand under S. 3(1)(a) of the U.P. control of Rent and Eviction Act and termination of tenancy under S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The notice itself was addressed to both the tenants (the assailants before me) but the envelope was addressed to one of them. He refused to accept it and it was returned by the post-office to the landlord who then filed the present suit for ejectment and recovery of rent.

2. The Defendants resisted the suit and denied that they had made any default in payment of rent. They also placed that the notice terminating the tenancy was invalid.

3. The courts below disbelieved the defendants story that they had paid rent and rejected the plea that the notice was invalid. They have come to this Court in second appeal.

4. Only one argument was advanced in support of this appeal - namely, that the notice terminating the tenancy was invalid as the envelop was addressed to one of the joint tenants. It was conceded that the notice itself, was addressed to both. The address on the envelope is no part of the notice but only a direction to the post-office to deliver the letter to a particular person. I am doubtful whether the post-office would accept a registered letter addressed simultaneously to two different persons as this may create trouble for them if the two addressees become rival claimants for the letter. But even if the post-office do accept an envelop for delivery, the address on it is only a direction to them. The real notice is inside the envelop. I would therefore hold that a notice calling upon two joint tenants to suit but sent to the address of one of them is in law a notice addressed to both.

5. Mr. Seth argued that the principle enunciated above may apply where such a notice is accepted by one of the joint tenants, but not where

it is refused by him. He argued that the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Kanji Manji v. Trustees of the port of Bombay, AIR 1963 SC 463 does not apply where tae tenant to whom it is addressed does not accept it. Learned counsel further argued that knowledge of the notice by one tenant may be imputed to another but ignorance cannot. Where a person refuses to accept notice he remains ignorant of the contents of the notice and therefore the other tenants remain equally ignorant. He relied on a decision of the Bombay High Court in Vaman Vithal v. Kanderao Ram Rao, AIR 1935 Bom. 247, in which it was observed that a registered letter tendered to the addressee and refused and brought back unopen is not well served because"one cannot assume that because an addressee declines to receive a particular sealed envelop he has guessed correctly as to its contents,' Beaumont C.J. observed in support of this view that"many people in this country make a practice of always refusing registered letters, a practice based, I presume, on their experience that such document usually contain something unpleasant."

With great respect the view of the Bombay Court does not take into account the manner of delivery of a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act which is authorised by the section itself. It provides,"Every notice m this section must be in writing signed on or on behalf of the person giving it and may be sent by post to parties who are intended to be by it or be declared or delivered personally to such party or to one of his family or servant at his residence or if such tender or deliver is not practicably affixed at a conspicuous part of the property". It is therefore obvious that the requirement with, regard to service of notice is fulfilled if it is sent by post to the person co