1969 PLP 873 (SCMR)

D. C. Bhattacharya, Senior Advocate (B. B. Roy Ch., Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Abdul Rab II, Attorney for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing : 10th July 1969. ABDUS SATTAR, J.‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of East Pakistan by which he dismissed the revision petition filed by the present petitioner challenging a decree of ejectment passed against him by the S. C. C. Judge, Sylhet in a case instituted by the respondent. One of the grounds on which the prayer for ejectment was resisted was that the notice determining the tenancy of the petitioner was not served on him. The notice determining the tenancy was sent by registered post but the envelope containing it came back with the endorsement "refused" written on it. The learned counsel contends that as the postal peon who wrote the endorsement was not examined there was no proof of the fact that the envelope was tendered to the petitioner. It is then argued that even if a presumption arises that the notice having been sent by registered post reached the petitioner, his denial should have been considered to be sufficient to rebut the presumption. Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, inter alia, provides that where any General Act or Regulation made after the commencement of that Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post, then, unless a different intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, prepaying and posting by registered post, a letter containing the document and unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post. Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act among other things lays down that the notice contemplated by that section "either be sent by post to the party . . . . . . . .or be tendered of delivered personally to such party" Under section 114(e) of the Evidence Act there is a presump tion that official acts have been regularly performed. There is no dispute about the fact that the envelope was correctly addressed. The posting of the envelope with proper stamps ha been proved and was not disputed. In these circumstances a presumption arose that the envelop was delivered to the petitioner and since it came back to the sender he did not accept it. The refusal pints to the conclusion that he was aware what was contained in the envelope. Mere denial by the petitioner is not sufficient to rebut the presumption. These are the only points convassed before us and as we have found no substance in4ny of them, this petition is dismissed, Leave refused.