Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2015 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 1557 - BOMBAY HIGH COURTSeeking eviction of the Respondents - default in the payment of rent - proper service of notice under Section 12(2) of The Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - statutory presumption contained in Section 27 of the General Clauses Act - Respondents have denied receiving notice under Section 12(2) of the Rent Act - whether such bald denial is sufficient for the purposes of rebutting the statutory presumption arising out of the provisions contained in Section 27 of the General Clauses Act read with Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act? HELD THAT:- The finding that there was no valid service of notice under Section 12(2) of the Rent Act is vitiated by perversity as well as material irregularity and illegality. This is a case where the onus of proof was incorrectly and in any case excessively cast upon the Applicant landlord. The presumption arising out of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act and Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act was not allowed its full play. As noted earlier, the Respondents have admitted in the course of their evidence that the address to which the envelopes containing the notices were addressed, are correct addresses. The Respondents have also admitted that they normally receive their correspondence at such address. There is material on record which establishes that the notices were indeed sent by R.P.A.D. and U.C.P. There is no evidence led by the Respondents either by way of examination of postman or otherwise to establish that such notices were not served. The Appeal Court, in such circumstances, was not right in holding that a bald statement that the notices were not served, suffice to rebut the statutory presumption. The Appeal Court, has already recorded the findings of fact that the Respondents were clearly in arrears in the payment of rent for a period of in excess of six months. Such findings have not been challenged by the Respondents. For all these reasons, the impugned Judgments and Decrees are liable to be set aside. This Civil Revision Application is allowed.
|