Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:807 Court No. - 4 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 16229 of 2024 Petitioner :- Shiv Ji Agrahari Respondent :- Smt. Urmila Shrivastava And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Naresh Nigam,Suresh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Ashwani Kumar Pathak Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

1. Heard Sri Ram Naresh Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashwani Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. By means of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, petitioner has questioned the decision of the Judge, Small Causes dated 12.04.2022 taken in S.C.C. Suit No. 04 of 2015 decreeing the suit for eviction and recovery for arrears of rent from the petitioner. The said order was unsuccessfully challenged in Revision before the court below and hence the judgment and order passed in Revision has also been challenged.

3. Two fold arguments have come to be advanced on behalf of the petitioner for assailing the judgment and decree passed by the trial court affirmed in revision:

i. There was no sufficient service of notice allegedly issued under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1872 and hence finding as to valid presumption qua service of notice was bad in law.

ii. The findings as to the applicability of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short 'Act No. 13 of 1972') is perverse.

4. In support of his first submission learned counsel for the petitioner argued that since notice was returned 'unclaimed', therefore, service would not be taken to be sufficient and in support of second submission, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an open piece of land was rented out upon which he had put up a shed and therefore, it would not be taken as a building so as to fall within the scope and ambit of Act No. 13 of 1972.

5. Per contra it is argued by learned counsel for the respondents that both on the point of service of notice as well as applicability of Act No. 13 of 1972 the judgment of the trial court affirmed in revision is based upon material evidence and lawful presumption as to the notice and applicability of Act No. 13 of 1972 and hence this Court has not exercised its power to interfere with such judgment under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records, the only question that arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether the lawful presumption was raised regarding service of registered notice sent to the petitioner by the landlord/ respondent and as to whether the finding regarding constructions standing in the form of rooms, Toilet etc. by the trial court is justified.

7. So far as the first argument is concerned, I find that the petitioner has not disputed this fact that the notice was sent upon correct address and it got returned as 'unclaimed' as nobody was found there at the address.

8. In the circumstances when the address given upon the envelope sent by registered post is not disputed and the registered notice has returned with the noting of 'unclaimed' or 'addressee not met/ found', then it would be a valid notice and a lawful presumption could have been raised regarding service thereof in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Special Appeal No. 129 of 2008, Neetu Devi Singh v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad through Registrar General, 2008 (71) ALR 62

9. It is a settled principle of law that such presumption is rebuttable provided of course, the addressee has come up with the case that address was not correct or that he wanted to cross examine the postman on the said noting made upon the envelop but no such case has been presented before my by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, I do not find any error of law in raising presumption by the trial court regarding service of notice.

10. In so far as the second point is concerned, the finding has come to be returned by the trial court to the