Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri P.K. Goswami, Advocate, for the petitioner and Sri A. K. Goel, Advocate, for the respondents 2/1 to 2/3.

2. Petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari for quashing the judgment and order dated 23.9.1996 passed by 4th Additional District Judge, Bareilly, allowing defendant-respondents’ SCC Revision No. 11 of 1991 by partly setting aside Trial Court’s judgment dated 23.2.1991, to the extent it has decreed the suit for eviction of defendant-respondent-tenants from premises in question.

3. Petitioner is landlord and the respondent No. 2, Rafiq Uddin (now deceased and substituted by his legal heirs) is the tenant.

4. The dispute relates to a residential accommodation i.e. House No. 11/5, Bankhana Road, Bareilly.

5. Petitioner purchased the disputed building vide sale-deed dated 21/23.5.1994 from its erstwhile owner Mohd. Sayeed. Respondent No. 2 was already occupying the disputed building enjoying tenancy rights on monthly rent of Rs. 80/-. Alleging that respondent No. 2 has committed default in payment of rent, petitioner gave notice dated 8.6.1988 by registered post, terminating his tenancy, and, thereafter, filed Suit No. 98 of 1988 in the Court of Small Causes, Bareilly, seeking eviction of respondent No. 2 (the tenant).

6. The Trial Court decreed the suit for eviction of respondent No. 2 from building in question and also for recovery of arrears of rent/damages but in a revision preferred by respondent No. 2, the Revisional Court by impugned judgment/order dated 23.9.1996 has reversed Trial Court’s decision to the extent it has decreed the suit for eviction of tenant from premises in question.

7. The only issue on which the Revisional Court has reversed findings of Trial Court is that the service of notice upon the tenant was not proved.

8. It was the case of plaintiff-petitioner that the notice dated 8.6.1988, sent to respondent No. 2-tenant by registered post but was returned by Postal Department with the endorsement of “refusal”. Tenant denied the factum of receipt of notice and also that it was ever attempted to be served upon him. The Revisional Court relying on this Court’s decision in Smt. Sona Devi v. District Judge, Basti, 1983 ARC 799 and Sagar v. Additional District Judge, Lucknow, 1986 (1) ARC 475, held, if a registered letter is received back with the endorsement of “refusal” about service of notice, it is the bounden duty of plaintiff to prove by cogent evidence and if necessary by examining the Postman that the letter was offered to addressee but he declined to accept the same. Referring to General Clause Act, 1897 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1897”) Revisional Court has taken the above view and has distinguished another decision of this Court in Lal Mohammad v. 2nd Additional District Judge, 1993 (1) ARC 55.

9. The only issue raised before this Court is whether in the matter of service of notice upon tenant, the view taken by Revisional Court is correct or not.

10. Before considering the judicial precedents relevant on the above question, three statutory provisions may need be taken note of.

11. First, is Section 27 of General Clauses Act, 1897 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1897” which reads as under:

“27. Meaning of service by post.—Where any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post, where the expression “serve” or either of the expressions “give” or “send” or any other expression is used, then, unless a different intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing pre-paying and posting by registered post, a letter containing the document, and unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.”

12. Another relevant provision is Section 114, Illustrations (e) and (f), Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1972”) which reads as under:

“114.