LawcurbLawcurbTMLegal Intelligence. Simplified.

Krishna Swaroop Agarwal (Deceased) Thr. LRv.Arvind Kumar

Date:
16 July 2025

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

View full judgment (PDF)