Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a suit for possession filed by landlords against tenants for default in rent payment under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The trial court dismissed the suit, ruling that the service of notice terminating the tenancy was not proved. The landlords appealed, and the Additional District Judge reversed the trial court's decision, holding that notice sent by registered post was presumed served. The tenants challenged this in a writ petition, which was dismissed by the High Court. The Supreme Court, upon appeal, examined the validity of the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and the issue of rent payment defaults. The court found that the notice was validly served as it was sent to the correct address and acknowledged by postal receipts. The court noted that the tenants did not deposit the full rent arrears on the first hearing date and failed to make regular payments during the appeal, thus constituting a default under Section 12(3)(b) of the Act. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower courts' decisions and the decree for possession in favor of the landlords.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Service of Notice - Validity of Notice - Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 106 - Notice sent by registered post is presumed served unless rebutted by extraordinary circumstances. The court held that the notice sent to the tenant company was validly served as per the requirements of Section 106, and the defendants failed to rebut the presumption of service (Paras 232-233). B) Rent Control - Default in Payment of Rent - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, Section 12(3)(b) - Defendants were found to be in default as they did not deposit the entire arrears on the first date of hearing. The court affirmed the finding that the defendants persistently committed defaults during the suit and appeal, justifying the decree for possession (Paras 233-234).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was validly served and whether the defendants were in default of rent payment.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower courts' decisions regarding the validity of the notice and the finding of default in rent payment. The court held that the notice was properly served and the tenants failed to comply with the rent payment requirements, justifying the decree for possession.
Law Points
- Service of notice
- Presumption of service
- Default in rent payment
- Transfer of Property Act
- Bombay Rents
- Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act
