JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri K.K. Arora, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Rakesh Prasad, learned counsel for opposite party.

2. Present revision has been preferred challenging the judgment and decree dated 03.10.2018 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/ F.T.C., Kanpur Nagar in S.C.C Suit No. 165 of 2015.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that revisionist is tenant and suit for eviction being SCC Suit No. 165 of 2015 was filed after sending notice dated 6.4.2015 through registered post as required under Section 106 of Transfer Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1882"). He next submitted that said notice was returned back by the postman on the very next date i.e. 7.4.2015 with remark ^^nfj;kQr djus ij ?kj okyksa us crk;k fd izkIrdrkZ vius futh dk;Z ls ckgj x;s gSa vkus dk dksbZ fuf'pr le; ugha gSA** He next submitted that as per letter dated 8.6.2015, same has been returned to addressee i.e. Jai Prakash Yadav on 10.04.2015. Therefore, under such facts of the case, once the notice has not been served and on the very next date i.e. 7.4.2015, it was returned back with the endorsement of postman and further, notice has been sent back to addressee on 10.04.2015, it shall not be treated to be sufficient. It is settled position of law that without service of notice under Section 106 of Act, 1882, no SCC Suit can be maintained. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgements of this Court in the matter of Shamim Ahmad Alvi Vs. Azizul Rahman Khan passed in Second Appeal No. 979 of 1972 decided on 11.3.1972, Shiv Narayan Goswami Vs. Jagdish Prasad Gupta ; 2015 (3) ARC 171, Satish Chandra @ Satish Pandit Vs. Manohar Lal Gera ; 2017 (1) ARC 470 and Rama Devi Vs. Ram Prakash ; 1984 LawSuit (All) 98. He also placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in the matter of A. Rama Rao and others Vs. Raghunath Patnaik and others ; 2007 (68) ALR 464.

4. Learned counsel for opposite party has not disputed the said fact, but submitted that sending notice dated 6.4.2015 shall be treated to be sufficient in light of Section 27 of GENERAL CLAUSES ACT , 1897 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1897"). In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgements of Full Bench of this Court in the matter of Ganga Ram Vs. Phulwati ; 1970 SCC Online All 42. He also placed reliance upon the judgments of Apex Court as well as different High Courts in the matters of Ms/. Madan and Co. Vs. Wazir Jaivir Chand ; 1988 0 Supreme (SC) 715, Subhas Chandra Mitra Vs. Netai Chand Dey ; 2004 (21) AIC 583, Sharda Prasad @ Chhulli Vs. A.D.J., Allahabad and others ; 2005 (3) AWC 2417, C.C. Alavi Haji Vs. Palapetty Muhammed & another; 2007 (5) Supreme 277, Ghulam Waris Khan Vs. LT Col Ajeet Singh ; 2008 Supreme (All) 134, Mohanlal Manna Vs. Lakshmi Prasad Shaw passed in Second Appeal No. 732 of 1999 decided on 30.11.2011, Smt. Vandana Gulati Vs. Gurmeet Singh @ Mangal Singh ; 2013 (2) ADJ 281, Ajeet Seeds Limited Vs. K. Gopala Krishnaiah ; (2014) 12 SCC 685, Alok Kumar Kaushik Vs. O.P. Shah and another ; 2017 0 Supreme (All) 1170, Jain Developers and 3 others Vs. Raja R. Chhabria and 4 others passed in Commercial Appeal No. 168 of 2017 In Suit No. 2808 of 2008 with Chamber Summons No. 139 of 2017 with Notice of Motion No. 2513 of 2016 In Suit No. 2808 of 2008 decided on 29.01.2018 and P.T. Thomas Vs. Thomas Job ; (2005) 6 SCC 478.

5. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, perused the relevant provisions of law as well as judgments relied upon.

6. The controversy before this Court is as to when service of notice shall be treated sufficient. To deal with present controversy, Section 114 of Indian EVIDENCE ACT , 1872 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1872") as well as Section 27 of Act, 1897 is relevant provision of law, in light of which controversy has to be decided, therefore, the same is quoted below;

Section 114 of Act, 1872

" Section 114 - Court may