Summary Of Analysis Krishna Swaroop Agarwal (Deceased) Thr. LR vs. Arvind Kumar

1. Heading of the Judgment

Civil Appeal No. 9518 of 2025
Krishna Swaroop Agarwal (Deceased) Thr. LR (Appellant) vs. Arvind Kumar (Respondent)
Decided on: July 16, 2025
Judges: Sanjay Karol and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ.
Core Issue: Validity of eviction notice endorsed "ND" (Not Delivered) by postal authorities.

2. Relevant Laws & Sections

The judgment interprets:

• Transfer of Property Act, 1882:
  Section 106: Requires valid notice for tenancy termination.

• General Clauses Act, 1887:
  Section 27: Creates "deemed service" presumption for registered post.

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC):
  Order V Rule 9(5): Treats refusal of summons as valid service.

3. Basic Case Details

Background

• Property: Commercial premises at Sadabad Gate, Hathras (UP).

• Tenancy Agreement:
  Rent: ₹3,000/month (inclusive of taxes).
  Duration: Monthly basis (starting 1st, ending last day of month).

• Default: Tenant (Arvind Kumar) failed to pay rent from June 1999–September 2000 (₹38,416 + taxes).

• Notices Served:
  12.09.2000 & 01.11.2000: Sent via Registered AD post demanding rent/vacant possession.
  Postal Endorsement: "ND" (Not Delivered).

• Trial Court (2011): Ordered eviction + rent recovery.

• High Court (2016): Set aside eviction, ruling "ND" means "no service."

4. Judgment Explanation

Key Findings

1. "Deemed Service" Applies to "ND" Endorsement:
   Section 27, General Clauses Act: If a notice is:
   (i) Correctly addressed,
   (ii) Pre-paid, and
   (iii) Sent via registered post,
   service is deemed effective unless proven otherwise.
   Court’s View:
   "Landlord dispatched notice properly. 'ND' doesn’t negate service – burden shifts to tenant to prove non-receipt."

2. Tenant’s Conduct Proves Service:
   Tenant avoided court proceedings for 7+ years:
   Failed to file written statement.
   Ignored court orders to deposit rent.
   Delayed tactics (e.g., frivolous revision petitions).
   Admission in Court (2004): Tenant acknowledged rent dues and compromise talks.

3. Precedents Support Deemed Service:
   Madan & Co. v. Wazir Jaivir Chand (1989): Registered post dispatch = valid service.
   C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Mouhammed (2007): "Refusal" or "non-delivery" irrelevant if dispatch is proper.
   Vishwabandhu v. Srikrishna (2021): Postal endorsement suffices for legal presumption.

4. High Court Erred:
   Ignored Section 27, General Clauses Act and precedents.
   Wrongly assumed "ND" meant "no service" without examining tenant’s evasion tactics.

Final Order

• Eviction Decree Restored: Tenant must:
  (i) Vacate property within 3 months.
  (ii) Clear rent arrears + mesne profits (₹2,500/month) + taxes.

• Critique: High Court’s revision was "illegal and perverse" – no jurisdictional error or trial unfairness.

5. Simplified Takeaway

• For Landlords: Sending termination notice via registered post fulfills legal requirements – postal issues (like "ND") don’t invalidate service.

• For Tenants: Cannot exploit procedural gaps while willfully defaulting on rent/avoiding court.

• Legal Principle: "Deemed service" protects landlords from tenants who evade receipt.

Significance: Upholds efficiency in eviction proceedings; prevents misuse of technicalities.

"Service is deemed effective when notice is properly dispatched – postal return endorsements are irrelevant." – Supreme Court