Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri S.C. Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Arun Pratap Singh, learned counsel for respondents.

2. It is tenant’s writ petition, who is facing ejectment from shop in dispute, and, therefore has approached this Court by means of the present writ petition seeking writ of certiorari for quashing the judgments and decrees passed by Courts below and restraining the respondents-landlords from evicting the petitioner from accommodation in question.

3. The dispute relates to a shop, which is part of a house situate at Arazi No. 28 Mauza Ahmadpur, Post Mariyahun, District Jaunpur. Respondentlandlord, Ram Prakash (since deceased and substituted by legal heirs), instituted Small Cause Suit No. 8 of 1998 for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profit etc. on the ground that petitioner-defendant, a tenant in the shop in dispute, has committed default in payment of rent, and, therefore, liable for ejectment. Trial Court formulated following four issues:

^^1&Dk izfroknh }kjk fdjk;k vnk djus esa dksbZ pwd dh x;h gS\

2&Dk izfroknh /kkjk 20 ¼4½ ;w0ih0 ,DV 13] 1972 dk ykHk ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\

3&Dk oknh ds }kjk nh x;h uksfVl fnukafdr 28&8&98 vUrxZr /kkjk 106 Vh0ih0 ,DV dk fof/kor rkehyk izfroknh ij gqvk\ ;fn gka rks mldk izHkko\

4&vuqrks”k ;fn dksbZ gks\^^

English Translation by the Court:

“1. Whether there has been any default by the defendant in paying the rent?

2- Whether the defendant is entitled to benefit of Section 20 (4), UP Act 13 of 1972?

3- Whether the notice dated 28.8.1998 given by the plaintiff under Section 106,TP Act was duly served on the defendant? If so, then its effect?

4- Relief, if any?”

4. The issue No. 3 relating to service of notice was returned against tenant on the ground that he refused to receive registered notice and having failed to prove that it was never offered to him, the service has to be treated as valid. In respect to issues No. 1 and 2 also, Trial Court recorded its findings in favour of landlord and accordingly decreed the suit, vide judgment dated 17.12.2005, whereagainst petitioner-tenant preferred S.C.C. Revision No. 21 of 2006 but Revisional Court, having agreed with the judgment of Trial Court, dismissed the revision, vide judgment dated 23.7.2007. Hence, this writ petition.

5. Before this Court, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, when a registered letter has been returned with the endorsement of refusal, onus lies upon landlord to produce ‘Postman’ to prove endorsement of refusal and in absence thereof, service of notice upon tenant, cannot be held proved, and, both the Courts below have erred in law in taking a different view.

6. Learned counsel appearing for respondents-landlords, however, sought to support the judgment impugned in this writ petition for the reasons given therein.

7. The only question, thus, which has to be examined by this Court in this case is whether onus to produce ‘Postman’ when a registered letter has been returned with the endorsement of refusal lies upon the landlord, i.e., sender of the registered letter or the tenant, i.e., the sendee, in respect whereof Postman has returned the letter with the endorsement of refusal.

8. Before answering the aforesaid question, it would be appropriate to have the relevant statutory provisions which may help this Court to decide the aforesaid issue.

9. 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” or any other expression is used, then, unless a different intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing prepaying and posting by registered post, a letter containing the document, and unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the ti