Back
2015 Supreme(All) 4083
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Vivek Kumar Birla, J.
Anil Kumar Singh - Appellant
Versus
Hanuman Das Bansal - Respondent
S.C.C. Revision No. 150 of 2015
Decided On : 11-12-2015
For the Revisionist :- Chandra Kumar Rai, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party :- Ashish Agarwal, Advocate.
The interpretation of the provisions of Section 106, Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the Post Office Act, 1898 influenced the court's decision in the landlord-tenant dispute.
Headnote:
Transfer of Properties Act - Landlord-Tenant Dispute - Section 106, Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, Post Office Act, 1898 - The court discussed the applicability of the Act 13, the execution of the rent deed, service of notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Properties Act, and the claim of rent increase and arrears. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the provisions of Section 106, Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, and Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the Post Office Act, 1898.
Fact of the Case:
The landlord filed a suit against the tenant for arrears of rent and termination of tenancy. The court found in favor of the landlord based on the execution of the rent deed and service of notice, and decreed the suit in favor of the landlord.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the landlord was entitled to arrears of rent and termination of tenancy based on the evidence presented.
Issues: The issues included the applicability of the Act 13, execution of the rent deed, service of notice, claim of rent increase, arrears of rent, and default in payment of rent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the provisions of Section 106, Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the Post Office Act, 1898.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision and granted six months' time to the tenant to vacate the premises, subject to certain conditions.
Vivek Kumar Birla, J. –
Rejoinder affidavit filed today, is taken on record.
2. Heard Shri C.K. Rai, learned counsel for the tenant-revisionist and Shri Ashish Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the landlord-opposite party.
3. The present revision has been filed against judgment and order dated 31.3.2015 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 5/Small Causes Court Act, Ghaziabad in SCC Suit No. 5 of 2012. The SCC Suit No. 5 of 2012 was filed by the landlord on the ground that on 11 months' agreement dated 1.4.2008 executed between the parties, the property hall 60/60 ft. was let out @ L 13,200/- per month rent and the rent was to be enhanced by 10% to 20% from March, 2009. As such, rent with effect from 1.3.2009 @ L 15,180/- with an increase of 15% was claimed by the landlord and a sum of L 2,01,300/- was claimed as arrears of rent. A registered notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Properties Act dated 28.12.2011 was given to the petitioner claiming arrears of rent and terminating the tenancy in question. The court below has framed 10 issues.
4. Issue No. 1 regarding applicability of the Act 13 was decided against the tenant holding that the said Act is not applicable. Issue 2 No. 2, 3 and 4 which were to the effect as to whether the defendant-revisionist is a tenant of property S-15, Vrindavan Gaurden, Sahibabad, Hall of 60/60 ft. which had been rented out by the plaintiff to the defendant and as to whether the rent deed dated 1.4.2008 was executed between the parties. After perusal of documentary evidence on record a finding of fact was recorded by the court below that plaintiff is the landlord of the property in question and the said hall on ground-floor was rented out to the defendant and rent deed dated 1.4.2008 was executed between the parties.
5. Issue No. 5, was as to whether the notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Properties Act dated 28.11.2012, was served upon the defendant or not. The court considered the evidence on record, which was in the shape of notice along with the registered receipt and showing the service of notice on 31.12.2011 on the defendant. The said receipt was disputed by the tenant by saying that he has not received the notice.
6. The court below has taken notice of the statement of DW-1 himself that the address given in the notice is correct and if any letter is sent on this address the same shall be delivered to him.
7. In such view of the matter, a finding of fact was recorded by the court below that presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 is in favour of the landlord and as such bare denial on the part of tenant would not suffice and the sufficiency of service was held in favour of the landlord. It may be noticed in this regard that a categorical service of notice dated 31.11.2012 was asserted by the landlord and it was not a case of service by refusal or otherwise. In such view of the matter, it cannot be said that the finding of fact regarding service of notice recorded by the court below is perverse or illegal in any manner whatsoever.
8. A reference may be made in this regard to the Full Bench decision of this Court in the Case of Ganga Ram v. Phoolwati, AIR 1970 Alld., pg. 446, wherein three questions were framed. The question no. 2 as framed in the aforesaid judgment and its answer is as follows: -
2. Whether it is incumbent on the plaintiff to prove the endorsement of refusal on the notice sent by registered post by producing the postman or other evidence in case the defendant denies service on him?
2. The answer is in the negative.
9. After detailed discussion and considering the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Section 27 of the General Clauses Act and Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, Post Office Act, 1898 the answer to question no. 2 was given in negative.
10. Consequently, the Issue No. 6 regarding as to whether the notice was valid or not, was also correctly decided in favour of the landlord after noticin
