RAMESH CHAND Vs. DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When these second appeals against orders came up before Deshpande J., either at the stage of admission or at the time of hearing, he referred them to a larger Bench in view of the decision of Kapur J. in Kaku Mall v. Smt. Dharmi Devi (S.A.O. No. 417 of 1968) decided on February 5, 1971

(2.) In the case dealt with by Kapur J., a notice was sent by registered acknowledgement due post by the counsel (Mr. G.R. Chopra, Advocate) for the landlord to the tenant. It was returned with the remark "'refused". Kapur J. noticed that there was nothing to show from the envelope that it contained a notice from the landlord and he observed:-

(3.) The notice in this case was one of demand for arrears of rent under clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which required it to be served in the manner provided in section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.