Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gulrej Khan, Advocate, holding brief of Sri J.H.Khan, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner Ugrasen is the tenant in a shop in dispute, which is part of house No. D-47/195-J, Mohalla Ramapura, Varanasi City, owned by respondent Smt. Parmeshwari Devi. The respondent-landlord instituted SCC Suit No. 116 of 1998 seeking eviction of petitioner from accommodation in question, on the ground of default, in payment of rent. The suit was decreed by Small Cause Court, Varanasi vide judgment and decree dated 6.10.2004. Petitioner’s revision No. 34 of 2004 has been dismissed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 5, Varanasi vide judgment dated 4.5.2005, hence this writ petition.

3. The basic contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner are:

(i) The tenant made deposit under Section 30 of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1972”) but for the purpose of giving benefit of Section 20(4) of Act, 1972, due credit has not been given by Courts below on the ground that deposit was not made validly. This finding by Courts below is wholly illegal.

(ii) No valid notice was given to the petitioner determining his tenancy.

4. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the dispute in present matter, are as under:

5. Petitioner-tenant was let out shop in dispute on monthly rent of Rs. 50/-. The petitioner stopped payment of rent from January, 1997 and instead, started depositing the same under Section 30(1) of Act, 1972 in the Court of Munsiff, Varanasi. A notice dated 20.8.1998 was served upon petitioner under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1882”) requiring him to pay rent from January, 1997 to July, 1998 i.e. for 19 months, which comes to Rs. 950/- and also water tax @ Rs. 40 per month, which comes to Rs. 760/- (total comes to Rs. 1710/-). The tenancy of petitioner was also determined by said notice and he was required to hand over vacant possession, after 30 days from the date of receipt of notice. The notice was served with an endorsement of ‘refusal’ by postal authorities. No rent was paid to landlord and hence the suit.

6. The petitioner contested the suit denying all allegations levelled in the plaint. The factum about tenancy at Rs. 50/- per month as also deposit of rent under Section 30(1) of Act, 1972 was also denied. The petitioner-tenant attempted to pay rent for the month of January, 1997 to the landlord on 3.2.1997 and demanded receipt for the rent of November and December, 1996. The landlord refused stating that rent must be paid @ Rs. 250/- per month and not Rs. 50/- whereupon petitioner remitted rent by money order for the moth of January, and February, 1997, which was returned with postal endorsement “refused” and hence was sought to be deposited in the Court of Munsiff City, Varanasi under Section 30(1) of Act, 1972 in Misc. Case No. 98 of 1997 in which notice was issued to the landlord. She (landlord) appeared and contested the matter. The notice of landlord dated 20.8.1998 has not been disputed by tenant but it is said that he never refused the same since it was never tendered or sought to be served upon him by postman concerned.

7. The real question raised in this matter, who was to prove that endorsement of ‘refusal’ was wrong. In other words, whose responsibility was to seek production of Postman else to fail. This matter may be examined in the light of certain statutory provisions and various authorities on the subject.

8. 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 authorizes or requires any document to be served by post, where the expression “serve” or either of the expressions “give” or “send” o