JUDGMENT T.S. Misra, J. - This appeal by the plaintiff arises out of a suit for ejectment of the defendant from the premises in question and for recovery of rent and damages. 2. The suit was decreed by the trial court, but on appeal the appellate curt below modified the decree by setting aside the decree for ejectment but maintaining the decree for arrears of rent. 3. The plaintiff has now come to this court on second appeal. The sole question for determination in this appeal is about the date of service of the notice under section 06 of the Transfer of Property, Act, and section 3 (1)(a) of U P. Act III of 1947. It may be stated at this place that a combined notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, and section 3 (1) (a) of Act III of 1947 was given by the plaintiff. It was sent in a covered envelope by registered acknowledgement due oust. The envelope containing the notice was, however, returned by the postal authorities to the plaintiff. That envelope has several endorsements on it. It appears that the postman so right to deliver the envelope to the defendant addresses on 24.12.68. The endorsement of that date is "not met". Below the date of 24-12-68 there are endorsements the dices of which are 26th-27th-28th-30th and 31st December, 1968. These endorsements indicate that the postman could not meet the addressee on 24th December and he, therefore, made other attempts to deliver the envelope to the defendant. Then there is an endorsement of 1st January, 1968. The figure 1968 has perhaps been wrongly written as it should have been 1968. It appears to be a slip of pen and to have been made due to a habit formed during the years 1968 of putting the word 1968 against the dates and months. This endorsement of 1st January also reveals that the addressee could not be met and the defendant's house was found locked. The postman again tried to deliver the envelope on 2-1-1969. The endorsement of that date is "refused." Another endorsement of 3-1-1969 is "not met'. The appellate court below observed teat in view of the endorsement of refusal on 2-1-69 the endorsement of 3-1-69 was suspicious. One thing is obvious that the postman did make several efforts to serve the envelope on the addressee. The endorsement of that date is "refused." Another endorsement of 3-1-1969 is "not met'. The appellate court below observed teat in view of the endorsement of refusal on 2-1-69 the endorsement of 3-1-69 was suspicious. One thing is obvious that the postman did make several efforts to serve the envelope on the addressee. As the addressee could not be met the postman did not return the envelop, to the sender but retained it for delivering it to the addressee on subsequent dates. His efforts continued for a few days right from 24th December to 2nd January, 1969) when ultimately he made an endorsement of refusal. The endorsement of 3rd January, 1969 "not met" is also there. From these two endorsements a presumption can reasonably be drawn that the addressee refused to take delivery of the envelope in question. A presumption of service of the notice has, therefore, to be drawn as laid down in Ganga Ram v. Phoolwati, 1970 A.L.J. 336. The Full Bench observed that the fact that the notice was returned back to the sender with an endorsement "refused" does not dislodge the presumption that the registered notice had reached the addressee. On the other hand, it strengthen the presumption that the notice had reached the addressee. It could not be delivered to him because he refused to accept it. 4. For the appellant it was urged that service of the notice was made on 24th December, 1968 when the first endorsement of "not met" was made by the postman. I am unable to accept this contention. Had the envelope been returned by the postman to the sender after making the endorsement of 24th Dec, 1968 the service of notice could have been presumed to have been made on 24th December, 1968 it cannot, however, be presumed that the notice in question was served on the defendant on 24th December, 1968 inasmuch as the postman retained the envelope and made his efforts to deliver the same to the addressee on the dates mentioned above and ultimately he made an endorsement of refusal on 2nd January, 1969. In these circumstances, it is not possible to accept the contention that the notice was served on 24th December, 1969 though the endorsement of refusal was finally made on 2nd January, 1969 and endorsement of "not met" was made on 3rd January, 1969. In these circumstances, it is not possible to accept the contention that the notice was served on 24th December, 1969 though the endorsement of refusal was finally made on 2nd January, 1969 and endorsement of "not met" was made on 3rd January, 1969. The appellate court below was, therefore, in my view correct in holding that the service of notice was effected on 2nd January, 1969 and at any rate on 3rd January, 1969. By the notice dated 21st December, 1968 which was put in that envelope the defendant was called upon to vacate the premises in dispute on 31st January, 1969. The notice having been served on 2nd January or, at any rate, on 3rd January, 1969 therefore did not give thirty days time required by law to vacate the premises. The notice determining the tenancy was, therefore, rightly held to be invalid. No other point was urged before me. 5. The appeal has no merits and is accordingly dismissed with costs.