The central legal point established in the judgment is that the service of notice for demand and termination of tenancy must comply with the requirements under the relevant legal provisions, and the presumption of service under the General Clauses Act, 1897 is rebuttable.

Sudhir Agarwal, J.

Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, Advocate for revisionist and Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondents.

2. This revision, under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1887"), has arisen from the judgment and decree dated 22.03.2005 passed by Sri Arun Kumar Gupta, Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Jhansi, decreeing SCC Suit No. 05 of 1998 granting decree of ejectment from disputed premises and recovery of arrears of arent and damages from defendant-revisionist.

3. The dispute relates to the House No. 1606/A, Nai Basti, Sushila Enclave, Gwalior Road, Jhansi, of which plaintiff-respondent, Jagdish Prasad Gupta (since deceased and substituted by his legal heirs), was the owner.

4. As per plaint case house was let out to defendant-revisionist on 10.11.1994 on a monthly rent of Rs. 2700/- for a period of three years. The defendant failed to pay rent despite repeated demand, hence a notice dated 18.11.1997 sent to defendant-revisionist which was returned with postal endorsement "Mila Nahi. Praptkarta Bahar Gaya Hai. Pata Nahi Kab Tak Wapis Aayega." Thereafter another notice dated 17.02.1998 was sent but with collusion of Postman the defendant-revisionist opened the notice, read it and thereafter returned with the same endorsement. Then a third notice was published in daily newspaper "Dainik Bhaskar" dated 24.03.1998 and copy of newspaper was sent at the address of defendant. Hence, tenancy having already terminated the defendant was liable for ejectment, payment of rent and damages for a period of unauthorized occupation at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month.

5. The Trial Court formulated following three issues:

^^1- D;k izfroknh ds ftEes fnukad 15-4-97 ls 24-4-98 rd dk fdjk;k ckdh gS\

2- D;k fxjtk 'kadj xqIrk ds ek/; ls izfroknh us 31-3-98 rd dk fdjk;k vnk dj fn;k gS vFkok ugha ,oa mldh jlhnsa tkjh gqbZ vFkok ugha\

3- D;k izfroknh ds fo: ) oknh }kjk izsf"kr vUrxZr /kkjk 106 lEifRr vUrj.k vf/kfu;e dh uksfVl fof/kr% rkehy gqbZ vFkok ugha ,oa izfroknh dh fdjk;snkjh lekIr gqbZ vFkok ugha\**

"1. Whether the rent for the period from 15.04.97 to 24.04.98, due against the defendant, is outstanding?

2. Whether or not the defendant has paid out the rent up to 31.03.98 through Vijay Shanker Gupta; and whether its receipts have been issued or not ?

3. Whether or not the notice issued by the plaintiff against the defendant u/s 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is duly served; and whether the tenancy of the defendant has got terminated or not?" (English translation by the Court)

6. Having answered aforesaid issues against defendant-revisionist the suit has been dismissed by Trial Court.

7. Before this Court the basic question which goes to root of the matter raised by learned counsel for the revisionist is, "whether any notice of demand and termination of tenancy was served upon defendant-revisionist and the findings recorded by court below in this regard are in accordance with law or not?"

8. Notice dated 17.11.997 is paper No. 11-C. It was sent by registered post addressed to Sri Shiv Narayan Goswami son of Sri Lal Chand Goswami, resident of 1606/A, Nai Basti, Sushila Enclave, Jhansi. Admittedly, notice was given at the correct address of disputed premises at which defendant-revisionist was residing. This notice stood returned by postal department with endorsement that sendee is out of station and it is not known as to when he will come back. As per the finding recorded by Trial Court also the return envelop contained endorsement dated 19.11.1997, 20.11.1997, 21.11.1997, 23.11.1997 and 25.11.1997, "not met". Meaning thereby, the Postman visited sendee's place but did not find sendee thereat and returned and ultimately with this endorsement that sendee is out of station, the notice was returned by postal department.

9. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents, when queried, he could not dispute that aforesaid endorsement cannot b