16 July 2025 Civil Appeals >> Civil & Consumer Law  

The Supreme Court recently overturned a High Court judgment that had set aside an ejectment decree on the sole ground that the tenant had not been properly served with a termination notice. The High Court had misinterpreted the postal endorsement "ND" as "Not Delivered," thereby concluding that the notice was invalid.

The case originated from a landlord-tenant dispute in Hathras, where the tenant failed to pay rent for over a year. The landlord, in compliance with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, sent legal notices to the tenant via registered post, requesting payment and vacation of the property. The postal department returned these notices with the endorsement "ND."

The trial court proceeded with the case ex-parte after the tenant failed to appear or file a written statement despite repeated opportunities. The court eventually decreed the suit, ordering the tenant to vacate the property and pay the outstanding rent and other charges.

The tenant then appealed to the High Court, arguing that the ejectment decree was invalid because the notice under Section 106 was never served. The High Court agreed, interpreting "ND" as "Not Delivered" and holding that since the tenant did not intentionally avoid service, the notice was not valid. Consequently, it set aside the trial court's ejectment decree.

The Supreme Court, however, found the High Court's reasoning to be fundamentally flawed. The Court highlighted that the High Court had failed to consider Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1887, which governs service by post. This section establishes the principle of "deemed service," stating that a document is considered served if it is properly addressed, prepaid, and sent by registered post, unless proven otherwise.

The Court referred to a line of its own precedents, including M/s. Madan and Co. v. Wazir Jaivir Chand and C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Mouhammed, to underscore the legal principle that once a notice is dispatched by registered post, the sender has fulfilled their duty. Whether the addressee accepts or refuses the notice is irrelevant, as the law presumes proper delivery. The High Court's interpretation of "ND" as invalidating service was therefore a misapplication of established legal principles.

Furthermore, the Court criticized the High Court for exceeding its revisional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court pointed out that a revisional court can only interfere with a lower court's decision on specific grounds, such as lack of jurisdiction or a decision based on inadmissible evidence. In this case, none of those criteria were met, and the High Court had interfered solely because it disagreed with the trial court's conclusion on the service of notice.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, restoring the ejectment decree passed by the trial court. It directed the tenant to hand over vacant possession of the property and clear all outstanding dues within three months, thus rectifying the legal error made by the High Court and upholding the principle of deemed service in postal communication.

  Transfer of Property Act, 1882