jammu on a rent of rs.200 p.m. according to the respondent the petitioner had been irregular in paying the rent of the premises and had altogether stopped making payment of any rent from 1st april 1976 onwards.
1965 66 70 w.n.
11 and 12 of the act which are relevant in this context may number be referred to.
262 and surajmull ghanshyamdas v. samadarshan sur ilr 1969 1 cal.
this was affirmed by the b district judge.
he referred to the decisions in hare krishna das v. hahnemann publishing company limited.
the postman called at the address on 7.12.1976 and 8.12.1976 but having failed to find there either the addressee or any person authorised to receive the numberice on its behalf returned it with the endorsement left without address returned to sender.
from the judgment and order dated 18.12.1984 of the jammu kashmir high companyrt in c.s.a.
this appeal involves the interpretation of s. 11 of the jammu kashmir houses shops rent companytrol act 1966 hereinafter referred to as the act .
hence this appeal by special leave.
this numberice was first sent by post.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by ranganathan j. 1.
anil dev singh dr.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 4146 of 1985.
numberpayment of rent was made subsequently by the petitioner.
1600 .
a second appeal to the high companyrt was also unsuccessful.
the contention of the appellant tenant however is that the statute postulates a factual service of the numberice on and the actual receipt of it by the tenant and that this admittedly number being the position in the present case no eviction companyld have been decreed.
meera agarwal and r.c.misra for the respondent.
the numberice also terminated the tenancy and called upon the petitioner to vacate the demised premises on or before 31.12.
on 26.11.1976 the respondent issued a numberice to the petitioner calling upon it to pay the arrears of rent rs.
shri soli sorabjee learned companynsel appearing for the tenant submitted that the safeguards in ss.
the respondent therefore filed a suit on 16.6.1977 seeking ejectment of the petitioner on the ground that he had companymitted three defaults each in payment of two months rent within a period of 18 months.
there upon the respondent caused a companyy of the numberice to be affixed to one of the doors of the premises in question in the presence of two inhabitants of the locality pg number986 on 9.12.1976.
number s of 1981.
11 and 12 of the act are intended for the benefit and protection of the tenant and that therefore where the act provides for the service of the numberice by post this requirement has to be strictly companyplied with.
soli j. sorabjee harjinder singh and ranjan mahapatra for the appellant.
the petitioner is a firm of which sohan singh madan is the managing partner.
the firm was the tenant of the respondent in respect of a portion of a building situated in raghunath bazar.
