Notice Served Via Registered Post Deemed To Be As Per Law: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court while restoring an Ejectment Decree has observed that if Notice is served via Registered Post, it is deemed to have been made in accordance with law.

The Court was considering an Appeal against an order of the Allahabad High Court whereby the order passed by the Additional District Judge was set-aside.

The Division bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed, "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 Appellant was represented by Advocate-on-Record Abhinav Shrivastava while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Vibhu Shanker Mishra.

Facts of the Case
The principle question of law for Court's consideration was as to whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the ejectment decree passed by the Trial Court in favour of the Appellant on the sole ground that the Notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, was not served upon the Respondent, as the postal letter was returned with endorsement “ND” which denotes “Not Delivered”.

The Respondent took the Suit Property on rent from the Appellant at ₹3,000/- per month, including the water tax and house tax. The tenant failed to deposit the rent for the period from June 01, 1999 to September 11, 2000, totaling to a sum of ₹38,416/- along with ₹3,841/- towards water tax and ₹3,841/- towards house tax. On the default of the Respondent herein in paying the rent and other occupational charges, the Appellant issued Legal Notices through Registered A.D. Post asking the Respondent to make good the default; to deposit the outstanding amount along with interest @ 10% per annum thereon; to pay expenses towards legal notice; and also to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property.

The tenant filed an Application under Order VII Rule 11 for rejection of plaint which was dismissed by the Trial Court for the reason that prior orders of the Court were not being complied with qua depositing of costs etc. The case continued with the tenant neither having deposited the rent nor handed over the possession of the suit property to the landlord.

It is against this order and decree passed by the Trial Court that the Revisional jurisdiction of the High Court was invoked by the tenant arguing that the Notice terminating tenancy under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was not served upon him and, therefore, the findings returned by the Trial Court were perverse, having observed that service through the registered notice was sufficient even when the same was returned by the postal department with the endorsement ‘ND’.

Reasoning By Court

The Court observed that the High Court erred in its conclusion as the impugned order was passed without consideration of Section 27 of General Clause Act, which provides that if services are made through Registered Post, it is deemed to have been made in accordance with law.

Referring to Supreme Court's decision in Ram Murti Devi v. Pushpa Devi, the Court observed, "Although, not an exhaustive list, we find that none of the most basic criteria laid down therein, such as lack of jurisdiction; the decision of the lower Court being based on evidence that ought not to have been admitted; lack of proper opportunity of hearing etc., to have been met in this case. The impugned order does not speak of any other reason or circumstance which compelled the Court to exercise its power under the CPC."

The Appeal was accordingly allowed and ejectment decree passed by the Trial Court was restored.

Cause Title: Krishna Swaroop Agarwal vs. Arvind Kumar

Appearances:

Appellant- Advocate-on-Record Abhinav Shrivastava, Advocate Ankur Sinha, Advocate Unnati Vaibhav

Respondent- Advocate Vibhu Shanker Mishra, Advocate Samta Pushkarna Mishra, Advocate Dibya Kumari

Click here to read/ download Order