- (1.) Petitioners before me are the legal representatives of Smt. Chandania, Landlord of the shop in dispute. Smt. Chandania had filed ejectment petition against the respondent on three grounds. She claimed that the respondent-tenant is guilty of non-payment of rent and house tax from June 1, 1963 and that he had removed the middle wall of the shop and had damaged its roof, thus materially affecting its value and utility adversely and had also kept it closed for the last two years prior to the filing of the petition. These allegations were denied by the respondent-tenant on the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed : 1. Whether the respondent is a statutory tenant under the applicant in respect of the premises in dispute. If so, on what terms and conditions and to what effect ? OPA. 2. Whether the respondent is liable to be evicted from the shop in dispute on the grounds stated in para No. 4 of the application ? OPA 3. Whether the Court of Rent Controller has no jurisdiction over the matter in dispute ? OPR 4. Whether the application merits dismissal on the grounds mentioned in preliminary objection No. 3 of the respondent's reply ? OPR 5. Whether applicant has no locus standi to file the application ? OPR 6. Whether the applicant has no cause of action ? OPR 7. Relief. In nutshell, the tenant claimed that the shop in dispute was owned by him and the same was never rented out to him as tenant. Thus the respondent denied the title of the landlord. The parties led evidence. All the issues were decided in favour of the landlord by the Rent Controller. On appeal having been filed before the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority accepted the appeal of the respondent-tenant on the short ground that the notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was not served on the tenant and, therefore, the ejectment petition was not maintainable. It may be pointed out that the petitioner-landlords produced the postal envelope containing notice Exhibit A/X on which there are two endorsements dated June 21, 1969, and June 23, 1969, at Mark 'B' made by the postman. In the endorsement dated June 21, 1969, it has been mentioned that the shop in question was closed, whereas in the second endorsement dated June 23, 1969, it has been mentioned that the respondent refused to receive notice. This notice was sent through registered post. However, the learned Appellate Authority relying on a decision of this Court in Puran Chand v. Lajya Wati, 1972 74 PunLR 930, reversed the finding of the learned Rent Controller on the point of service of notice on the sole ground that the respondent-tenant in his statement had stated that he had not received the notice. No doubt as a proposition of law, if the statement of the addressee is acceptable to the court, the endorsement made by a postman regarding the refusal of the addressee to receive the communication may be sufficient to rebut the presumption of service of the said notice but in case where the statement of the addressee does not find favour with the court and it is held that his statement is not reliable, in that case, the question of rebuttal of presumption will not arise. The case relied upon by the learned Appellate Authority is a case where the statement of the addressee was acceptable to the Court. As will be pointed out here presently, in the case in hand, the statement of the respondent to the effect that he was not served with the notice made during the course of cross-examination, is really meaningless and no weight can be attached to that statement. He nowhere mentioned in the examination-in-chief that no notice was received by him. Moreover, every sentence of his statement in examination-in-chief has been disbelieved by both the courts below. He claimed to be the owner of the shop in dispute whereas both the courts below on cogent and reliable evidence came to the conclusions that Smt. Chandania was the landlord of the shop in dispute. The observation of the learned Appellate Authority in that context may be reproduced as follows :- "The appellant is not the type of a person who could be said to be a truthful person." The finding of both the courts below go to show that every material fact stated by the respondent-tenant in his statement has been disbelieved by both the courts below and concurrent finding of the facts have been recorded. In this view of the matter, his mere denial and that also when he was confronted with the envelope on which his refusal has been recorded that he never received the notice, is really meaningless. All the other issues have been found in favour of the petitioner-landlord.
(2.) For the reasons recorded above, this petition is accepted, the judgment of the First Appellate Court is set aside and the petition for ejectment filed by the landlord is allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs.;