2025 (7) TMI 1451 - SC - Indian Laws

Setting aside the ejectment decree passed by the Trial Court in favour of the appellant - notice u/s 106 of Transfer of Property Act 1882 was not served upon the respondent - postal letter was returned with endorsement ND which denotes Not Delivered - HELD THAT - In M/s. Madan and Co. v. Wazir Jaivir Chand 1988 (11) TMI 348 - SUPREME COURT which was a case concerned with the payment of arrears of rent under the J K Houses and Shops Rent Control Act 1966. The proviso to Section 11 which is titled as Protection of a Tenant against Eviction states that unless the landlord serves notice upon the rent becoming due through the Post Office under a registered cover no amount shall be deemed to be in arrears. Regarding service of notice by post it was observed that in order to comply with the proviso all that is within the landlord s domain to do is to post a pre-paid registered letter containing the correct address and nothing further. It is then presumed to be delivered under Section 27 of the GC Act. Irrespective of whether the addressee accepts or rejects there is no difficulty for the acceptance or refusal can be treated as a service on and receipt by the addressee. Undisputedly notice was sent to the respondent by Registered Post in compliance with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The High Court as we have observed held that since the endorsement on the notice read ND the notice was not delivered and therefore any and all proceedings arising therefrom would be bad in law and hence the decree of ejectment was set aside. We are of the view that the High Court was plainly in error in coming to this conclusion. The impugned order was passed without consideration of Section 27 of GC Act which provides that if services are made through Registered Post it is deemed to have been made in accordance with law. The ejectment decree passed by the Trial Court in S.C.C. Suit No.23/2000 is restored. The tenant is directed to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property to the landlord within three months from the date of communication of this judgment - Appeal allowed.

Summary

ISSUES:

Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the ejectment decree on the ground that the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, was not served due to the postal letter being returned with the endorsement "ND" ("Not Delivered").Whether service of notice by registered post constitutes "deemed service" under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1887, even if the postal letter is returned undelivered.The scope and limits of the High Court's revisional jurisdiction under the Civil Procedure Code in interference with trial court decrees.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

The High Court erred in setting aside the ejectment decree solely because the notice was returned with the endorsement "ND" indicating "Not Delivered"; service by registered post is "deemed to be effected" under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1887.Service of notice by registered post, when properly addressed, prepaid, and posted, is "deemed to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post," irrespective of actual delivery or refusal, unless contrary proof is provided.The High Court's revisional power does not extend to substituting its own conclusion merely because it might have arrived at a different view; interference is justified only where the lower court lacked jurisdiction, admitted inadmissible evidence, denied proper opportunity of hearing, or placed burden of proof wrongly.

RATIONALE:

The Court applied Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1887, which provides that service by registered post is "deemed service" unless the contrary is proved, thereby shifting the burden to the party denying service to prove non-receipt or avoidance.Precedents were relied upon, including rulings on service by registered post under various statutes such as the Negotiable Instruments Act and Rent Control Acts, which consistently uphold the principle of deemed service irrespective of actual delivery or refusal, including cases where postal endorsements indicated refusal or non-delivery.The Court emphasized the settled principle limiting revisional jurisdiction under the Civil Procedure Code, referencing authoritative precedent that revision is not for reappreciation of evidence or substituting judgment but for correcting jurisdictional or procedural errors affecting fairness.The High Court's interpretation of the postal endorsement "ND" as negating service was rejected as a misapplication of legal principles and statutory provisions governing deemed service.