The main legal point established in the judgment is the presumption of service of notice when sent by Registered Post and the interpretation of the modes of service of notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.

( 1 ) -THE Suit filed by the landlords for ejectment and for recovery of arrears of rent was decreed by the learned Judge, Small Cause Courts, by the order dated 8th September, 1997. This petition has been filed by the landlords for setting aside the judgment and order dated 14th December, 1998 by which the Revision filed by the defendants for setting aside the aforesaid order dated 8th September, 1997 was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court.

( 2 ) SCC Suit No. 13 of 1991 had been filed on 21st March, 1991 by the landlords impleading M/s. Ganga Medical Store (notice to be served through partner or any other person carrying on the business), Shyam Lal Paliwal and Chandra Dutt Sharma as defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively. It was alleged that the shop had been let out at the rate of Rs. 475/- per month but the rent had not been paid from 29th May, 1990 along with the taxes and, therefore, a notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act for terminating the tenancy on the expiry of 30 days and for payment of arrears of rent was served upon the defendants.

( 3 ) THE learned Judge, Small Cause Courts found that U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 was not applicable to the building in question since the building was first assessed on 1st April, 1982 and period of ten years had not lapsed from the date of construction of the building. The Court also found that there was a presumption about the service of the notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act upon the defendants. The suit was, accordingly, decreed. The Revisional Court, however, observed that the aforesaid notice had not been served upon the defendants and, therefore, it remanded the matter to the Trial Court.

( 4 ) THE basic issue that arises for consideration in this petition is whether the notice sent by the plaintiffs under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act had been served upon the defendants. It would, therefore, be relevant to refer to the facts relating to the service of the said notice. The case set up by the plaintiffs was that initially the notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was sent to all the defendants by Registered Post on 19th November, 1990 at the address of the Firm. The postal receipts were marked as Exhibits 3, 4 and 5. The Registered notice sent to defendant No. 1 M/s. Ganga Medical Store was marked as Exhibit 7. The registered letter was returned with the endorsement of the postman "not met despite information" as even though the postman went to the medical store to serve the said notice daily from 21st November, 1990 to 27th November, 1990 yet he could not serve it. The registered notice sent to Shyam Lal Paliwal which was marked as Exhibit 8 was also returned with the endorsement of the postman that though he went daily from 21st November, 1990 to 27th November, 1990 to serve it but he could not meet the person despite information having been given. The registered notice sent to Chandra Dutt Sharma was marked as Exhibit 6 and it also contained the same endorsement of the postman "not met despite information.

( 5 ) AFTER the aforesaid notices sent by registered post were returned back, the landlords again sent the notices on 4th December, 1990 by registered post to all the defendants but this time at two addresses namely at the address of the shop and also at the residential address. The postal receipts of these notices were marked as Exhibits 16, 17 and 18. The notices sent to the firm were marked as Exhibits 10 and 13, the notices sent to Shyam Lal Paliwal were marked as Exhibits 11 and 12 while the notices sent to Chandra Dutt Sharma were marked as Exhibits 14 and 15. The notices sent by registered posts to the partners at their residential address were diverted to Indore and Kota but there also they were not received by the addressee. The postman made the endorsement on the envelope that though he made attempts to serve