TMI Blog1990 (9) TMI 344X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her ground, viz., the construction of a permanent structure by the tenant without the authority of the landlord was not proved. This decision was confirmed in appeal by the Appeal Bench of the Small Causes Courts, Bombay. The writ petition filed in the High Court against the said judgment was dismissed summarily. 2. The only point which was canvassed before us, was whether the appellant had received the notice dated September 3, 1963 demanding the arrears of rent and whether the appellant had failed to pay the arrears of rent within thirty days of the receipt of the said notice as required under the relevant provisions of the Bombay Rent Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ), there being no dispute that the rent in arrears was for m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n different styles. The appellant further did not lead sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of service. It was admitted by Amarjeet Singh that either he himself or his brother or his employee would always be present in the suit premises. Although he came out with an alibi that he was not present in the premises on the date on which the postal acknowledgment is signed, he has not stated that nobody else was present in the shop on that day and hence nobody could have received the said notice on behalf of the appellant. The courts, therefore, held that the service of the notice on the appellant was proved. Since the rent was admittedly not paid within thirty days of the receipt of the said notice, according to the mandatory provisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wn against him would of course depend on the veracity of his statement. The court in the facts and circumstances of a case may not consider such denial by the defendant as truthful and in that case such denial alone would not be sufficient. But if there is nothing to disbelieve the statement of the defendant then it would be sufficient rebuttal of the presumption of service of such letter or notice sent to him by registered post. In the present case it is an admitted position that the notice by registered post had been sent at the proper address. Similar address appeared in the earlier notice given to the defendant and the same is admitted to have been received by the defendant. It has come on record that the defendant proprietor Amarjee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndant goes to show that no reliance can at all be placed on the bald denial of Amarjeet Singh that he did not receive the notice dated 3.9.1963 sent to him by registered post. He was capable of introducing certificate of posting (Ex.-7) in support of his case which was found to be not genuine. As already mentioned above, Amarjeet Singh was signing in different manner and his above conduct of relying on a fabricated document clearly goes to show that no credence can be given to his statement that he had not received the notice in question. In view of these circumstances, we hold that the mere denial by Amarjeet Singh that he did not receive the notice cannot be believed and as such there is no rebuttal of the presumption drawn against him ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
