JUDGMENT S.S. Dhavan, J. - This is a tenant's second appeal from the decree of the Additional Civil Judge Muzaffarnagar reversing that of the Additional Munsif Kairana Muzaffarnagar and decreeing the landlord's suit for her ejectment. The appellant is the tenant for a house in Muzaffarnagar of which the plaintiff respondent Gaja Singh is the owner and landlord. The rent is Rs. 2/- p.m. The plaintiff alleged that the appellant did not pay any rent after December 1957 and on 27th December 1961 he served on her with a notice of demand but she failed to pay the rent in spite of it. The appellant, resisted the suit and denied that she had made any default in the payment of rent. She alleged that on receipt of notice she remitted by money order the entire amount claimed by the plaintiff but he refused to accept it and the money order was returned to her with the endorsement refused. The trial court accepted this defence and dismissed the suit for ejectment while decreeing the claim for rent. On appeal the learned Civil Judge held that the endorsement on the money order coupon raised on presumption that the remittance had reached the landlord within the prescribed period of one month. Holding that the appellant had failed to prove that she paid the arrears of rent within one month of the demand, he allowed the appeal and decreed the suit for ejectment. The appellant has come here in second appeal. 2. The learned appellate Judge was in error. The notice of demand was sent on 22nd of December 1961 and received by the appellant on the 27th of December. Therefore she had to pay the arrears of rent on or before the 27th of January 1962. She proved that she remitted the amount by money order on the 22nd of January and that it was returned to her with the endorsement refused. The question before the appellate Judge was whether a remittance made by money order on the 22nd of January reached the addressee on or before the 27th of January, the parties residing in the same city. The question before the appellate Judge was whether a remittance made by money order on the 22nd of January reached the addressee on or before the 27th of January, the parties residing in the same city. The learned Judge thought that the appellant could not rely upon a mere presumption and observed "The mere fact that the money order was sent on 22-1-62 and would in the1 normal circumstances have reached the plaintiff appellant by 27-1-62 is by itself no ground to absolve the defendant-respondent of her responsibility to make payment within one month on receiving the notice of demand. The money order coupon in the present case does not go to show that the money order was refused by the plaintiff appellant (respondent in this second appeal). For the reasons best known to the defendant-respondent, (appellant in this appeal) she did not lead any evidence to prove this fact. She should have examined the Postman who actually took the money order of the plaintiff-appellant. The allegation that the plaintiff appellant refused to take the money order cannot be upon mere presumption." 3. I regret to say that these observations are based upon a misunderstanding of the law governing the presumption which arises in the case of a money order returned with the endorsement refused. If the sender proves that he remitted the amount by money order and it was returned to him by the Post Office with the endorsement refused, a presumption will arise that the postal authorities followed the ordinary course and tendered the amount to the addressee who refused it. The presumption is rebuttable but the onus is on the addressee to prove by reliable evidence that he did not receive the amount. A bare denial by him will not necessarily rebut the presumption. Basu Ram v. R. L. Sethi, 1963 AWR page 472. In this case the appellant established that she sent .the money order and it was returned by the Post Office as refused. This raised a presumption that the respondent refused to accept the money. He led no evidence apart from his bare denial that he did not refuse the remittance. Therefore the learned Judge was wrong in holding that the respondents refusal could "be established by what he called "a mere presumption". He overlooked the very purpose of presumption which the law enjoins in such circumstances. He led no evidence apart from his bare denial that he did not refuse the remittance. Therefore the learned Judge was wrong in holding that the respondents refusal could "be established by what he called "a mere presumption". He overlooked the very purpose of presumption which the law enjoins in such circumstances. The postal authorities handle a large number of money orders every day and ordinarily they are not interested in the result of each remittance - whether it is accepted or refused by the addressee. It would cause a good deal of inconvenience if, (in spite of the endorsement of refusal, a party were asked to produce the Postman to prove the refusal by the addressee. This would frustrate the very purpose of the presumption. 4. The real question in this case is whether the remittance was tendered on or before the 27th of January 1962. Here again a presumption would arise that events must have taken place in their ordinary course. The sender and the addressee lived in the city of Muzaffarnagar which is small town. A money order delivered to the Post Office on the 23rd of January would not ordinarily take more than four days to be delivered and the sender is entitled to rely on the presumption that it was delivered on or before the 27th of January. The presumption was rebuttable and the respondents could have produced the post man or any other postal official to prove that in fact it was tendered to him after the 27th of January 1962. 5. In the circumstances I must hold that the plaintiff respondent had not established that the appellant had failed to pay the arrears of rent within one month of service of notice of demand allow this appeal and set aside the decree of the lower appellate court and restore that of the trial court. The appellant shall have her costs in all the courts. Appeal allowed.