ANIL KUMAR Vs. NANAK CHANDRA VERMA
LAWS(SC)-1990-1-42
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on January 25,1990

ANIL KUMAR Appellant
VERSUS
NANAK CHANDRA VERMA Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

RADHEY SHYAM PATWA VS. XTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE VARANASI [LAWS(ALL)-1993-7-44] [REFERRED TO]
PRAMOD KUMAR VS. ILLRD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE MEERUT [LAWS(ALL)-1996-5-114] [REFERRED TO]
NANHEY KHAN VS. 1ST ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE FARRUKHABAD [LAWS(ALL)-2000-3-94] [REFERRED TO]
PRABIR KR DUTTA GUPTA VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(GAU)-2000-4-22] [REFERRED TO]
DHARMENDRA KUMAR JAIN VS. VIIITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE [LAWS(ALL)-2009-4-21] [REFERRED TO]
ZAHID HUSSAIN VS. RAM SWAROOP GUPTA [LAWS(ALL)-2009-7-152] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH KUMAR VS. SAVITRI GOYAL [LAWS(ALL)-2009-12-119] [REFERRED TO]
HAJRABI ABDUL GANI VS. ABDUL LATIF AZIZULLA [LAWS(BOM)-1995-12-46] [REFERRED TO]
LALMANI RAMNATH TIWARI VS. BHIMRAO GOVIND PAWAR [LAWS(BOM)-2001-1-11] [REFERRED TO]
DAVID K N VS. S R CHAUBEY CHATURVEDI [LAWS(BOM)-2003-2-126] [REFERRED TO]
DHRUVAKUMAR HARIBHAU GUJRATHI VS. DATTATRAYA SHANKAR CHIKHLIKAR [LAWS(BOM)-2005-7-72] [REFERRED TO]
MADHAVSINGH TULSIDAS VS. BHAKTIBEN NARANDAS PALEJA [LAWS(BOM)-2006-6-83] [REFERRED TO]
TIRATHDAS POKHARDAS KALDA VS. SURIBAI ASSUMAL MOOLCHANDANI [LAWS(BOM)-2006-10-159] [REFERRED TO]
TIRTHDAS POKHARDAS KALDA VS. SURIBAI ASSUMAL MOOLCHANDANI [LAWS(BOM)-2006-11-32] [REFERRED TO]
SEVUMAL TOPANDAS SADHWANI VS. JAYNOMAL NANOMAL [LAWS(GJH)-1993-9-50] [REFERRED]
SHARDA PRASAD ALIAS CHHULLI VS. A D J ALLAHABAD [LAWS(ALL)-2005-3-145] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD  ISMIL VS. II  ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE JHANSI [LAWS(ALL)-2006-4-17] [REFERRED TO]
THAKURMAL RAMUNMAL ISINCE VS. CHAKRADHAR RAO BHOSLE [LAWS(CHH)-2008-11-2] [REFERRED TO]
NARAYAN GANPAT BHOITE VS. RAMPYARI SUCHITRAM GUPTA [LAWS(BOM)-2000-8-7] [REFERRED TO]
KAILASH CHAND VS. HEMLATA [LAWS(RAJ)-1997-10-31] [REFERRED TO]
SAVITRI DEVI VS. 10TH ADDL DISTT & SESS [LAWS(ALL)-2012-9-49] [REFERRED TO]
VANDANA GULATI VS. GURMEET SINGH ALIAS MANGAL SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2013-1-11] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH KUMARI VS. 4TH ADDITIONAL, DISTICT JUDGE [LAWS(ALL)-2012-9-243] [REFERRED TO]
SUDESH KUMAR VASUDEVA VS. VEENA GARG [LAWS(P&H)-2004-4-21] [REFERRED TO]
KALI RAM VS. MIRZA WAKER ALI [LAWS(UTN)-2004-12-27] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH KUMAR JAISWAL VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2014-7-199] [REFERRED TO]
KULBHUSHAN GOEL VS. BRIJ MOHAN GOEL [LAWS(DLH)-2009-11-280] [REFERRED TO]
BRIJ NANDAN GUPTA VS. IIIRD ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, RAMPUR [LAWS(ALL)-2012-7-337] [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH VS. VAISH DHARAMSHALA SABHA AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2007-3-339] [REFERRED TO]
UGRASEN VS. PARMESHWARI DEVI [LAWS(ALL)-2014-4-306] [REFERRED TO]
RAFIQ VS. KHODEJA BIBI [LAWS(ALL)-2014-8-189] [REFERRED TO]
GURJEET SINGH VS. MAJOR BHIM SAIN MEHTA (RETD.) [LAWS(P&H)-2010-11-366] [REFERRED TO]
BACHCHAN LAL VS. RAM PRAKASH [LAWS(ALL)-2015-1-105] [REFERRED TO]
ANANT TULSHIRAMJI BAJAJ VS. SUNIL [LAWS(BOM)-2015-7-174] [REFERRED TO]
ANITA GUPTA (SMT.) VS. VIJAY KUMAR SHARMA [LAWS(ALL)-2012-1-877] [REFERRED TO]
DHARMENDRA KUMAR JAIN AND OTHERS VS. VIIITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AGRA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2009-4-853] [REFERRED TO]
ASHRAF VS. KAILASH PRASAD (SINCE DEAD) AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2016-5-636] [REFERRED TO]
MAHIUDDIN MAJARBHUYA VS. LEGAL HEIRS OF LUTFA BEGUM MAZUMDER [LAWS(GAU)-2017-2-34] [REFERRED TO]
LEGAL HEIRS OF MOHI UDDIN MAJARBHUIYA AND ORS. VS. LEGAL HEIRS OF ABDUL HASIM MAZUMDAR AND ANR. [LAWS(GAU)-2017-2-43] [REFERRED TO]
ON THE DEATH OF ABDUL MATLIB MAJARBHUIYA HIS LEGAL HEIRS MD. MOHI UDDIN MAJARBHUIYA & ORS. VS. ON THE DEATH OF ACHAB ALI [LAWS(GAU)-2017-2-63] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD AFZAL VS. RAMESH KUMARI [LAWS(ALL)-2018-7-284] [REFERRED TO]
PREM BAHADUR DALELA VS. UMESHRAJ BALI [LAWS(ALL)-2019-11-51] [REFERRED TO]
DINESH CHAND GUPTA VS. MAHATMA GHANDI GIRLS POST GRADUATE COLLEGE, FIROZABAD [LAWS(ALL)-2019-4-323] [REFERRED TO]
BAJRANG LAL SWAMI VS. KANTA DEVI [LAWS(RAJ)-2020-9-46] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The suit for eviction of the appellant in respect of certain premises has beep decreed by the trial Court and that decree has been confirmed by the High Court. The principal question that arises for consideration relates to the validity of the notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The notice was not personally served but there is an endorsement of the Postman stating that it has been refused. The case of the tenant was that he was not at all present during the period when the Postman visited the premises for service and the endorsement of the Postman was therefore not correct. He has discharged the initial burden by examining himself and it would be for the other side to prove the valid service. The submission was sought to be justified by reference to the decision in AIR 1980 Allahabad 280 Shiv Dutt Singh v. Ram Das and AIR 1976 Delhi 111 Jagat Ram Khullar v.. Battu Mal.
(2.)The question considered in both the decisions was to the statement on oath by the tenant denying the tender and refusal to accept delivery. It was held that the bare statement of the tenant was sufficient to rebut the presumption of service. In our opinion there could be no hard and fast rule on that aspect. Unchallenged testimony of a tenant in certain cases may be sufficient to rebut the presumption but if the testimony of the tenant itself is inherently unreliable, the position may be different. It is always a question of fact in each case whether there was sufficient evidence from the tenant to discharge the initial burden.
(3.)In the instant case the trial Court has considered the evidence of the tenant and was not impressed with it. It is indeed impossible to believe that the tenant having the business premises at Ghaziabad would have left it in the hands of the servant and remained at Delhi for a long period from 19-12-1984 to 1-1-1985 where people shuttle between the two places quite often.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.