The Supreme Court held that a notice sent via registered post under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is deemed served under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1887, even if returned with an “ND” (Not Delivered) endorsement. The High Court erred in setting aside the ejectment decree by ignoring this legal presumption of service. The Trial Court’s decree was restored, affirming the landlord’s right to evict the tenant for non-payment of rent and other charges. The judgment reinforces the principle that proper dispatch of a registered notice fulfills statutory service requirements unless rebutted.
Facts Of The Case:
The appellant, Krishna Swaroop Agarwal (since deceased and represented by his legal heir), was the landlord of a property in Hathras, Uttar Pradesh, which was rented to the respondent, Arvind Kumar, at a monthly rent of ₹3,000, inclusive of water and house taxes. The respondent defaulted on rent payments from June 1999 to September 2000, accumulating arrears of ₹38,416 along with additional charges. The appellant issued legal notices on September 12, 2000, and November 1, 2000, via registered post, demanding payment and vacating the premises. The notices were returned with an “ND” (Not Delivered) endorsement. The appellant filed a suit for eviction and rent recovery before the Additional District Judge, Hathras, which proceeded ex parte after the respondent failed to appear or file a written statement. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the appellant, directing eviction and payment of dues. The respondent challenged this before the Allahabad High Court, arguing that the notices were never served. The High Court set aside the decree, ruling that the “ND” endorsement invalidated service. The Supreme Court reversed this decision, holding that under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1887, properly dispatched registered notices are deemed served, irrespective of delivery status. The ejectment decree was restored, with directions for the respondent to vacate and clear dues within three months.
Procedural History:
The case originated with the filing of a suit (S.C.C. Suit No. 23 of 2000) by the landlord, Krishna Swaroop Agarwal, before the Additional District Judge, Hathras, seeking eviction and recovery of rent arrears from the tenant, Arvind Kumar. The Trial Court proceeded ex parte after the tenant failed to file a written statement or appear despite service of summons. On November 26, 2011, the court decreed the suit, ordering eviction and payment of dues. The tenant challenged this decree before the Allahabad High Court through Civil Revision No. 22 of 2012, contending that the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was not served, as the registered letter was returned with an “ND” (Not Delivered) endorsement. On October 7, 2016, the High Court allowed the revision, setting aside the Trial Court’s decree on the ground of improper service. The landlord then appealed to the Supreme Court via Special Leave Petition (SLP(C) No. 26340 of 2017), which was converted into Civil Appeal No. 9518 of 2025. On July 16, 2025, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the High Court erred in ignoring the presumption of service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, and restored the Trial Court’s decree of eviction.
READ ALSO :Supreme Court Acquits Man in Rape Case Due to Lack of Evidence on Victim’s Age
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court made several key observations in its judgment. Firstly, it emphasized that under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1887, a notice sent via registered post is deemed served if properly addressed, prepaid, and posted, unless the contrary is proved. The Court noted that the High Court erred in disregarding this legal presumption merely because the notice was returned with an “ND” (Not Delivered) endorsement.Secondly, the Court relied on precedents such as C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Mohammed and Madan & Co. v. Wazir Jaivir Chand, which established that refusal or non-delivery of a registered notice does not invalidate service if dispatch is proven. The Court reiterated that the landlord’s obligation ends with proper dispatch, and the tenant’s avoidance of service does not negate compliance with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.Additionally, the Court observed that the High Court’s revisionary jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC was misapplied, as the Trial Court’s findings were neither perverse nor based on inadmissible evidence. The Supreme Court stressed that revisional powers should not be exercised merely to reassess factual findings unless there is a jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice.Finally, the Court held that the tenant’s prolonged default in rent payments and procedural delays justified the Trial Court’s eviction decree, restoring it with a three-month compliance period for vacating the premises and clearing dues.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Allahabad High Court’s order and restoring the Trial Court’s eviction decree against the tenant, Arvind Kumar. The Court held that the registered notice sent under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, was validly served under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1887, despite the “ND” (Not Delivered) endorsement, as the landlord had properly dispatched it. The Court ruled that the High Court erred in overturning the Trial Court’s decision without considering the legal presumption of service and the binding precedents on deemed delivery.The tenant was directed to hand over vacant possession of the suit property within three months and clear all arrears of rent, mesne profits, water tax, and house tax due to the landlord. The Court also ordered the Registry to communicate the judgment to the concerned courts for enforcement. Any pending applications were disposed of, and the ejectment decree stood affirmed, reinforcing the principle that proper dispatch of a registered notice constitutes valid service unless rebutted by contrary evidence.Justices Sanjay Karol and Joymalya Bagchi pronounced the judgment on July 16, 2025, upholding the landlord’s right to evict a defaulting tenant in compliance with statutory requirements.
Case Details:
Case Title: Krishna Swaroop Agarwal (Dead) Thr. L.R. vs. Arvind Kumar Citation: 2025 INSC 859 Civil Appeal No.: Civil Appeal No. 9518 of 2025 Date of Judgment: July 16, 2025 Judges/Justices Name:Justice Sanjay Karol & Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Download The Judgement Here