The burden of proof lies on the addressee to establish non-receipt of a notice sent by registered post, and the presumption of service can only be drawn when the registered letter contains a complete and correct address of the addressee.

Sudhir Agarwal, J.

1. Heard learned counsels for parties and perused the record.

2. This Revision under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1887") has arisen from judgment and decree dated 22.04.2009 passed by Sri N.L. Agarwal, District Judge, Deoria decreeing SCC Suit No. 5 of 1986.

3. Plaintiffs-respondents instituted the aforesaid suit for recovery of rent and eviction of defendant-revisionist from Shop No. 105 of 2004 boundaries whereof were given at the bottom of plaint. The shop is situated at Bajaji Road, Nagar Palika Ward No. 7, Deoria.

4. The only argument advanced before this Court is that no notice determining tenancy or demanding rent was served upon defendant-revisionist and in that view of matter, suit could not have been decreed and Court below has erred in law in drawing a presumption of service against revisionist merely on the basis of the address mentioned in the carbon copy of notice and this approach on the part of Court below is patently illegal.

5. Plaintiffs stated that notice was served upon defendant-revisionist by registered post dated 17.08.1985, a copy whereof has been placed on record before this Court as Annexure-7 to affidavit with Stay Application, which shows only the name of addressee and there is no address mentioned in the said receipt. Service of notice was denied by defendant-revisionist, but Court below has drawn presumption only on the basis that letter was sent by registered post without there being any evidence to show that correct address was mentioned on the registered letter by plaintiff-respondent. Para 15 of judgment dealing Issue-3 with regard to validity of notice reads as under:

"15. The plaintiff has filed the registered postal receipt (6/C) dated 17.08.85 and a carbon copy of the notice (7/C) and it has been clearly averred that quit-cum-demand notice was sent to the defendant on 17.08.85 which was received by the defendant on 19.08.85. As it is a registered notice sent through the postal authority, there is a presumption that that the notice has been delivered. The burden lies on the defendant to establish that no notice was served on him. There is a bare denial on the part of the defendant regarding receipt of the notice. Mere denial is not sufficient for holding that no notice was served. Something more ought to have been done to establish that, in fact, the notice was not served on the defendant. No efforts were made by the defendant to establish that the notice was not served on him by calling for the record from the postal authority. No arguments regarding validity of the notice have been advanced as to what is the invalidity in the notice. The only question is about the service of the notice. In the present given facts and circumstances, I hold that the notice has duly been served on the defendant and it is perfectly a valid notice."

6. No doubt, once a registered letter has been sent which mentions correct address of the addressee, Court will be entitled to draw a presumption regarding due service of that notice vide Illustration (e) and (f) of Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1872"). The presumption of service of a letter sent by registered post can be drawn only when it is shown that registered letter contains a complete and correct address of addressee and unless this much is shown, question of presumption even in respect to a letter sent by registered post would not arise. It is true that when a letter is sent by registered post, normal presumption of service is applicable, though it is rebuttable. It cannot be doubted that presumption under Section 114(g) of Act, 1872 is rebuttable.

7. Once the addressee deny receipt/service of registered letter, the addressor has the onus to show that it was sent mentioning correct and complete address of addressee, actually served upon or received by the addressee or he refused to receive the same though sought to be serve