Notice Sent Under Certificate of Posting Is Enough Where Mode of Notice Is Not Referred to - Synopsis
Dilpreet Singh 28 Apr 2020

The Supreme Court has asserted that a notice sent under a Posting Certificate is appropriate where the service mode is not specified.

A bench comprised of Justice R Banumathi and Justice Vineet Saran considered whether a landlord had given the tenant with the adequate notice for the vacation of property in compliance with Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Building (Letting, Leasing, and Eviction Regulation) Act, 1972.

The Court observed that a specific mode of service is not provided for in the section.

“From the perusal of the aforesaid Proviso to the said Section, it is clear that no particular mode of giving notice by the landlord to the tenant has been provided for, meaning thereby that the same could be given orally or in writing; and if in writing, it is not necessary that it should be sent only by registered post. What is required is that "the landlord has given a notice in that behalf to the tenant”.

The HC set aside the appeal for release granted in favor of the owner on the primary finding that there was no evidence of service to the tenant.

The SC observed to this effect:

"It may be so that mere receipt of notice having been sent under certificate of posting, in itself, may not be sufficient proof of service, but if the same is coupled with other facts and circumstances which go to show that the party had notice, the same could be held to be sufficient service on the party".

In the first place, the Supreme Court acknowledged that Section 21 of the Rent Control Act does not recommend any specific means of providing notice to the tenant.

"From the perusal of the aforesaid Proviso to the said Section, it is clear that no particular mode of giving notice by the landlord to the tenant has been provided for, meaning thereby that the same could be given orally or in writing; and if in writing, it is not necessary that it should be sent only by registered post. What is required is that "the landlord has given a notice in that behalf to the tenant", it observed.

The Bench then stated, in the light of the judgment in Sumitra Devi, that the Notice delivered under Certificate of Posting is adequate evidence of service and depends on the circumstances of each case.

On the examination of the facts of the present case, the Court noted that the Appellant had submitted a copy of the receipt, dated 25.07.2006, of having sent the notice under the certificate of posting; while, in 2007, the Respondent-Tenant acknowledged that the Appellant was his landlord and then submitted an application for rent in court in 2007.

On the basis of the sequence of events as set out above, the court concluded that the respondent had "notification" of the proceedings.

"It may be so that mere receipt of notice having been sent under certificate of posting, in itself, may not be sufficient proof of service, but if the same is coupled with other facts and circumstances which go to show that the party had notice, the same could be held to be sufficient service on the party. In the present case, the law permits filing of a document (receipt of under certificate of posting in this case) to be filed along with an affidavit, which has been done so in this case. Further, there was clear admission of the respondent (tenant) that the appellant was his landlord (for which sale deed had been supplied to the tenant) and subsequent act of the respondent (tenant) depositing the rent under Section 30(1) of the Rent Control Act in the Court and other attending circumstances, as have been considered by the Prescribed Authority, would all clearly go to show that there was sufficient proof of service of notice, which finding of fact has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority, and we see no reason for the Writ Court to have unsettled such concurrent findings of fact," the bench thus held.

Finally, the Court recognized that the appellant had encountered "comparative difficulties" and was thus entitled to leave the premises.

"The judgment of the Writ Court is set aside and the release application of the appellant (landlord), which was allowed by the Prescribed Authority, and affirmed by the Appellate Authority, stands affirmed. The respondent (tenant) is directed to vacate the premises in question and hand over possession to the appellant (landlord) within six months from today," the Court directed.

×

C2RM… To Know More

Something Awesome Is In The Work

0

DAYS

0

HOURS

0

MINUTES

0

SECONDS

Sign-up and we will notify you of our launch.
We’ll also give some discount for your effort :)

* We won’t use your email for spam, just to notify you of our launch.
×

SAARTH… To Know More

Launching Soon : SAARTH, your complete client, case, practise & document management SAAS application with direct client chat feature.

If you want to know more give us a Call at :+91 98109 29455 or Mail info@soolegal.com