P L D 1968 Lahore 1201 (PLP)

(b) it shall not be lawful for the transferee to eject such persons from the house or shop for a period of six years and from the industrial concern, cimema house or printing press for a period of 3 years from the date of transfer, notice of which shall be given by the transferee to the tenant within one month of such transfer by registered post (acknowledgment due). Section 27 of the General Clauses Act

"Where any Central Act or Regulation made after the com mencement of this Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post, whether the expression `serve' or either of the expressions `give' or `send' or any other expression is used 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 16 of the Evidence Act:‑ "Where there is a question whether a particular act was done, the existence of any course of business, according to which it naturally would have been done, is a relevant fact." Illustrations (a) The question is, whether a particular letter was despatched. The facts that it was the ordinary course of business for all letters put in a certain place to be carried to the post, and that that particular letter was put in that place are relevant. (b) The question is, whether a particular letter reached A. The facts that it was posted in due course, and was not returned through the Dead Letter Office, are relevant. Section 114 of the Evidence Act:

"The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case." Illustrations "The Court may presume‑ (f) that the common course of business has been followed in particular cases; These provisions would show that if a letter properly directed and pre‑paid containing the notice under section 30 is proved to have been posted by registered post (acknowledgment due), it is presumed that the letter reached its destination at the proper time according to the regular course of business of the post office and was received by the person to whom it was addressed A and the presumption is not rebutted by the fact that a receipt for the letter is produced signed by a person other than the addressee himself, if that other person is not established to be not a member of the family of the addressee or his servant or agent. Their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in Harihar Banerji and others v. Ramshahi Roy and others (1), while considering service of notice to quit, under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, observed as under:‑-- He seemed to be of opinion that the registered letter must be presumed to have been delivered to the person who signed on behalf of the addressee the receipt of it, but not to the addressee himself in the first instance or at all, and that as there was no proof that the persons other than the addressees who so signed were the duly authorised agents of the addressees to receive these notices the proof of service was defective. Service of a notice upon or delivery to such an agent would be good service or delivery to the principal though in fact the notice was destroyed by the agent and never was seen or heard of by the principal Tanham v. Nicholson (1872) 5 H L 561 but it is an entire mistake to suppose that the addressee must sign the receipt of a registered letter himself or that he cannot do so by the hand of another person, or that if another person does sign it on the addressee's behalf the pre sumption is that it never was delivered to the addressee himself mediately or immediately. For instance, if a servant in the addressee's house saw a notice banded in by the postman carried to the addressee, and banded to him that servant could certify that it was delivered to his master, and, could, if requested by the master, sign the receipt on the latter's behalf, though he was not the agent of the master authorised to take delivery on his, the master's behalf." This authority was, however, attempted to be distinguished by learned counsel for the appellant on the ground that as section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act contemplates vicarious tender or delivery of the notice, section 30 of Act XXVIII of 1958 does not envisage any such relaxation and personal service of notice is a must. I find that no doubt under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, notice to quit may be served personally or by post or at the residence or in the last resort by being affixed to the property demised, the weighty observations of their Lordships in respect of service by post: it is an entire mistake to suppose that the addressee must sign the receipt for a registered letter himself or that he cannot do so by the hand of another . . .", fully cover the case before me. No authority to the contrary has been cited at the bar, on behalf of the appellant. There has been proper service of the statutory notice on the appellant and no exception can be taken to the judgment of the lower Appellate Authority in this regard. The appeal fails and is dis missed with costs. Appeal dismissed.