JUDGMENT : Mohapatra, J. - This is Defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit brought by the Plaintiffs for ejectment and for recovery of arrears of rent in respect of the house situate in Buxibazar, town Cuttack. The Plaintiffs purchased the suit house from the previous owner Ganesh Prasad Bhagat by a registered Kabala dated 18-6-48. Thereafter intimation was given to the Defendant to pay all the arrears and to vacate the house. Eventually the Plaintiffs obtained an order of exemption from the House Rent Controller as they required the house for their personal use. They also served a notice dated 11-6-49 demanding the Defendant to quit the house on the expiry of the month of Tenancy. The defence is that there was no proper service of notice to quit. Both the courts below having decreed the Plaintiff's suit, the second appeal has been brought by the Defendant. 2. The point raised on behalf of the Defendant is that there has been no valid service of notice as contemplated u/s 106 of the T.P. Act. The relevant portion of the section runs as follows: Every notice under this section must be in writing signed by or on behalf of the person giving it, and either be sent by post to the party who is intended to be bound by it or be tendered or delivered personally to such party, or to one of his family or servants at his residence or (if such tender or delivery is not practicable) affixed to a conspicuous part of the property. The Plaintiffs have taken out notice by registered post. It appears from the evidence of witnesses examined on behalf of tile Plaintiffs that the notice in question was received by one Ananta Charan Naik, an employee of the Defendant; but in fact the agent of the Defendant is Ananta Charan Ray. The acknowledgment of the registered letter shows that the notice was received by A.C. Ray. The learned court below after a discussion of the evidence has come to the finding that though apparently there has been some confusion regarding the name there is no difficulty as to the identity. It has been found as a matter of fact that the notice was received by an employee of Defendant on his behalf. 3. Mr. The learned court below after a discussion of the evidence has come to the finding that though apparently there has been some confusion regarding the name there is no difficulty as to the identity. It has been found as a matter of fact that the notice was received by an employee of Defendant on his behalf. 3. Mr. Mohanty, appearing on behalf of the Appellant, argues that the service of notice on an employee of the Defendant is not sufficient compliance with the provisions of law and it has got to be further proved that the notice was served at the residence of the addressee-Defendant. The Plaintiffs, however, relied upon the first clause "be sent by post to the party who is intended to be bound by it" and not on the third clause "or to one of his family or servants at his residence". If the notice be sent by registered post it need not be further proved that it was in fact delivered at the residence of the addressee. It is to be mentioned here that there is no dispute that the address of the Defendant on the letter was correctly mentioned. The clause "either be sent by post to the party" is introduced by the amending Act No. 20 of 1929. Even prior to the introduction of this new provision of the year 1929, the position of law was well settled that notice proved to have been properly directed and posted is to be presumed to have reached the person to whom it was directed in the ordinary course of postal business unless the contrary is proved. I may refer to a decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of Harihar Banerji v. Ramsashi Ray 45 I.A. 222. Their Lordships, relying upon a decision of Cockburn C.J., Blackburn, Mellor, and Hannen JJ., in Gresham House Estate Co. v. Raila Grande Gold Mining Co. I may refer to a decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of Harihar Banerji v. Ramsashi Ray 45 I.A. 222. Their Lordships, relying upon a decision of Cockburn C.J., Blackburn, Mellor, and Hannen JJ., in Gresham House Estate Co. v. Raila Grande Gold Mining Co. (1870) W.N. 119 (which they characterized as the clearest and most conclusive authority upon the question of the sufficiency of the service or delivery of a notice by post) observed that if a letter properly directed is proved to have been put into the post office, 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 wail received by the person to whom it was addressed. Their Lordships further observed "That presumption would appear to their Lordships to apply with still greater force to letters which the sender has taken the precaution to register, and is not rebutted, but strengthened, by the fact that a receipt for the letter is produced signed on behalf of the addressee by some person other than the addressee himself." It can never therefore be argued in this case that the notice cannot be taken to be suffices. It as it was not received by the addressee himself. The fact that one Ananta Charan Ray had received the letter on behalf of the addressee will not in the least affect the validity of the service of notice and as observed by heir Lord ships of the Privy Council, when this notice was sent by registered post the presumption is strengthened. These observations of their Lordships of the Privy Council have received the statutory recognition by incorporating the new clause "either be sent by post to the party who is intended to be bound by it", and have made the position absolutely clear that the point taken by the Defendant is bound to fail. It appears that when the Plaintiffs prove that they had sent the letter by registered post giving the correct address of the party for whom the letter was meant, they have complied with the provisions of Section 106 T.P. Act. 4. In conclusion, therefore, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Final Result : Dismissed