Valid service of notice under S.106 of the Transfer of Property Act confirmed despite additional numbering; mere mention of a second address does not invalidate notice.

1. Heard Sri A. Ravinder Reddy, Counsel representing the appellant and Sri N. Vasudeva Reddy, Counsel representing the respondent.

2. The only substantial question of law raised by Sri A. Ravinder Reddy, Counsel representing the appellant in the Second Appeal, Sri A. Govindraj Goud, the unsuccessful defendant in both the Courts below is as hereunder :
"Whether there was service of notice in accordance with law under S.106 of the Transfer of Property Act , 1882 (for short 'the Act') on the appellant / defendant?"

3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned counsel made elaborate submissions pointing out the findings recorded by the Court of the first instance and also by the lower appellate Court. The learned counsel also had traced the historical background and would maintain that in view of the compromise entered into in a prior litigation, the appellant as defendant had handed over possession of mulgie No. 2-101/8 and he is continuing in occupation of one mulgie bearing No. 2-101/9 only, which is the plaint schedule property. The learned counsel would maintain that it is not as though the respondent / plaintiff is not aware of these facts but despite the same deliberately both addresses were shown on the covers in relation to the service of notice and notice in fact was never served. But however, both the Courts had recorded concurrent findings erroneously that such notice would be sufficient notice within the meaning of S.106 (2) of the Act. The learned counsel also submitted that this approach of both the Courts below definitely cannot be sustained. The learned counsel also submitted that in the decisions, which had been relied upon by the both the Courts below, there was no mention of any wrong number or at any rate a misleading number and in this view of the matter those decisions are distinguishable on facts. The learned counsel placed strong reliance on the Judgment reported in M/s. Surajmull Ghanshyamdas v. Samadarshan , AIR 1969 Cal. 109 .

4. On the contrary, Sri N. Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel representing the respondent - plaintiff M/s. Vikranti and Company, a partnership firm represented by its Managing Partner, that the mere mentioning of both the numbers would not in any way alter the situation since the fact remains that originally both the shops were let out to the appellant - defendant and subsequent thereto possession was taken in relation to one shop and the other shop continues to be in his possession, and, in relation to the said shop, the notice of termination of tenancy under S.106 of the Act had been issued in accordance with law. The counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to the evidence of both PW - 1 and DW - 1 in this regard and had explained that DW - 1 admitted relating to the correctness of the address. The counsel would maintain that in such a situation, the mere fact that another number was also mentioned in addition to the correct number would not amount to any deliberate act of giving a wrong number or a wrong address. The learned counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to Ex.A - 5 Office Copy of notice dated 20-7-1994, Ex.A6 Receipt of Certificate of Posting and Ex. A - 7 Returned Cover. The learned counsel also would maintain that in the light of the facts and circumstances, both the Courts had arrived at the correct conclusion, especially, in the light of the presumption available in law, and, held that respondent - plaintiff is entitled to the relief of eviction. The learned counsel also had placed strong reliance of decisions in M. A. Ghani v. P. Rami Reddy , 2003 (2) Andh LD 801, Saladi Srirama Murthy v. Ka