This is defendant's appeal. The suit was for ejectment of the defendant and for possession after removing and dismantling the houses on the land. The case of the plaintiff was that the defendant took the house on a monthly rent of Rs 31/4/ and the tenancy-was according to the Sambat year. As the defendant defaulted in paying the rent and further that the houses became old and the plaintiff required the said houses for reconstructing them, he gave a notice to the defendant which he refused to accept and thus the plaintiff brought the present suit for re coverv of arrears of rent as well as for ejectment of the defendant. The trial court dismissed the suit for ejectment but decreed the suit for arrears of rent On appeal The lower appellate courl allowed The appeal and decreed the suit Tor ejectmenl (2) In The present appeal the defendant has raised mainly two points, firstly that there was no valid notice and secondly that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he requires The houses for reconstruction (3) The contention of the appellant is that the registered envelope containing the notice is alleged to have been refused by the defen danl and unless the endorsement made by the peon lo that effect is proved by the peon, no presumption can be raised against the defen danl aboul the service of the notice Section 106. Transfer of Properlv Act reads us follows "In the absence of a contracl or local law or usage to the contrary, a lease of immove able property for agricultural or manufactur ing purposes shall be deemed lo be a lease from veai to vear. terminable, on the parl of eilliei lessor or lessee by six months' notice expiring wilh the end of a vear of the tenancy: and a lease of immoveable propertv for any other purpose shall be deemed to be a lease from month to month, terminable, on The parl of cither lessor or lessee by fifteen days' notice expiring with The end of a month of The tenancy livery notice under this section musl be u> writing signed by ni on behalf of The person giving it.
eithei be sent by post to the parly who is intended to be bound by it or be ten dered 01 delivered personally to such partv or to one of his family or servants, at his residence. 01 (if such lender or delivery is not practicable) affixed lo a conspicuous parl of the Properlv " Whal section 106 requires is that the notice is to be in writing signed by and on behalf of the person giving it and it can be sent either by posl lo the party or tendered or delivered personally to such party. As soon as the notice is posted by giving the proper address, the requirement of section 106, Transfer of Property Act is complied with and there will be a presumption that notice has been tendered as required under section 106. If the defendant wants to rebut that presumption it is for him to prove that the notice has not been tendered at all In (lie present case the defence taken was that the notice was never sent. (4) Mr Pathak contends that unless il is proved by the plaintiff himself that the notice is received by the defendant. There is no valid notice under clause 1 of section 106. In my opinion there is no substance in this contention There is also no force in his contention that unless the peon is examined the endorsement to the effect that the letter has been refused cannot be taken into consideration and no presumption can be raised in favour of the plaintiff. Reference in this connection may be made to the cases of Saligram Rai Chunilal Bahadur and Co. v. Abdul Gani. reported in AIR 1953 Assam 206, Bapavva v. Venkalarat-narn reported in AIR 1953 Mad 884 . Azizul Hague v. P. Das, reporled in ILR (1955) Assam 544. Harihar Bauerji v. Ramshashi Roy report ed in 23 Ca] WN 77 (AIR 1918 PC 102) and Girisli Chandra Ghosc v Kishore Mohan Das. reporled in 23 C;,l WN 319 :(AIR 1920 Cal '-'87 (2) ). (5) Mr.
Azizul Hague v. P. Das, reporled in ILR (1955) Assam 544. Harihar Bauerji v. Ramshashi Roy report ed in 23 Ca] WN 77 (AIR 1918 PC 102) and Girisli Chandra Ghosc v Kishore Mohan Das. reporled in 23 C;,l WN 319 :(AIR 1920 Cal '-'87 (2) ). (5) Mr. Pathak relied upon certain observa lions in the case of 'Vaman Vithal v. Khanderao reported in AIR 1935 Bom 247 The facts of that case are distinguishable and moreover in view of the decision of this court in the case reported in AIR 1953 Assam 20R with which I have no reason to differ the case reported in AIR 1935 Bom 247 cannot be of much assistance to the defendant The notice was thus valid and there is no substance in (his conlen lion. (6) There is no force in the other poinl raised by the appellant also The courl below after consideration of the evidence lias come to the conclusion that the house required reconstruction Although the plaintiff claimed ejectment on the ground that the defendant was a defaulter, it is also alleged in the plain! that the house has become verv old and was n veded for reconstruction II cannot, therefore. He argued that the point was not urged by the plaintiff The finding that the house was required for reconstruction is a pure finding ot fad. (7) Mr. Lahiri for the respondent lias Iried to supporl the decision of The courl below also on the ground that the defendant was a de faulter as the finding of the lower appellate courl on that point against the respondenl has been challenged As. however 1 have Held that there is no force in the appeal, it is not necessary to examine this point any further In the result, therefore, there is no force in Ibis ap peal and it is dismissed with cosl Appeal dismissed