JUDGMENT : U.S. Srivastava, J. This revision application u/s 115, CPC arises out of the revisional order passed by the court of IV Additional District Judge u/s 25 of the Small Causes Court Act allowing the landlord's revision application against the judgment and decree passed by the court of Judge Small Causes Court dismissing the suit of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff filed a suit against the tenant stating in the plaint that the tenancy was terminated after notice u/s 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was given to the tenant, whereafter the present suit was filed by the Plaintiff. The tenant revisionist took a number of pleas at the stage of evidence. Counsel for revisionist stated that he was giving up all the other pleas and confined his case only oil the plea regarding absence of service of notice upon him. The case of the Defendant is that he was neither served any notice nor did he refuse to accept the same. The Plaintiff examined his shop and stated that be gave notice to his counsel and thereafter stated that notice was also sent to the Defendant at his residential address and that the notice was also affixed on the door of the disputed house, but later on stated during cross-examination that he has not sent notice through the office address. The other witness examined by him also deposed that the Plaintiff's son affixed the notice in his presence on the outer-door of the house on the front portion. although the Defendant resided in the back portion of the house. The Defendant not only examined himself, but examined one witness Arun Kumar who stated that the Defendant was an employee of his Department and that he was transferred in 1975. Smt. Prem Arora, the wife of the Defendant, was examined who stated that no notice was affixed on her door in the year 1974. The revisionist stated that no notice was served upon him. The trial court believed the statement of the Defendant's witness and held that no notice was served upon the Defendant who did not refuse to accept any notice. The trial court consequently dismissed the Plaintiff's suit. The revisionist stated that no notice was served upon him. The trial court believed the statement of the Defendant's witness and held that no notice was served upon the Defendant who did not refuse to accept any notice. The trial court consequently dismissed the Plaintiff's suit. The Plaintiff filed a revision application and the revisional court entered into the evidence and held that as over the registered envelope containing notice an endorsement to the effect 'not met' was made by the postman, service was not effected, but at the same time it held that as notice was also sent to the Defendant under certificate of posting, as such there was a presumption of service. The statement of the Defendant to the effect that he did not receive notice was not accepted. The revisional court also held that from the evidence it was proved that the notice was pasted at the residence of the Defendant without deciding the question as to whether the same was pasted on the front portion or the back portion of the house which in fact was in occupation of the tenant. The revisional court also found that the notice sent to the Defendant at his office address was not correctly addressed. The revisional court thus recorded a finding that the notice was served on the Defendant, but made no reference to the statement which was made by the Defendant himself that he was not served with the notice and to his knowledge no affixation was ever made and that it was absolutely incorrect that any notice which might have been sent by the Plaintiff was ever delivered to him. 2. Sri S.K. Shukla, learned Counsel for the revisionist, contended that the revisional court had no jurisdiction to enter into the question of fact and in case it was acting as an appellate court, it Was bound to consider the statement of the defence witness and in the absence of any statement on behalf of the Plaintiff to show that in fact any notice was said to have been sent by certificate of posting or was delivered to the Defendant-applicant, it was bound to consider the contradiction in the statement of witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2. 3. 3. A perusal of the judgment passed by the revisional Court shows that it did not record any clear finding as to by which mode, service was effected, on the tenant viz., by affixation or through letter sent under certificate of potting. It seems that the revisional court was of the view that the notice under certificate of posting was served upon the Defendant-applicant, but while recording finding on the point the statement of the witness examined by the Defendant was not considered. The learned Counsel for the opposite party argued before me that the notice which was sent to the Defendant-applicant under certificate of posting was duly served and presumption of service in this case was not rebutted. A perusal of the judgment passed by revisional court shows that the revisional court has not recorded by clear finding that the service was effected through affixation. No such finding could have been arrived at without taking into consideration the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act which permits service by affixation as a last resort only after other modes of service fail and the said mode could be adopted only when personal service is impossible. In the absence of any such finding in the instant case it could not be held that service was effected through affixation. 4. Coming to the question of effecting the service through notice under certificate of posting, the learned Counsel for the applicant contended that the document said to be the receipt showing that the < letter addressed to the Defendant was sent under certificate of posting appears to be a suspicious document. The document was sent to the Defendant under certificate of posting from Daliganj post office and at the same time a registered letter was sent from Aminabad post office the same day which is two miles away from Daliganj. Learned Counsel contended that even if it would be taken that such a receipt was of the letter which was despatched from Daliganj post office to the Defendant then no presumption of the letter on the Defendant-applicant could be drawn. In support of his case the learned Counsel referred to a case B.L. Shrivastava Vs. Learned Counsel contended that even if it would be taken that such a receipt was of the letter which was despatched from Daliganj post office to the Defendant then no presumption of the letter on the Defendant-applicant could be drawn. In support of his case the learned Counsel referred to a case B.L. Shrivastava Vs. M.M.L. Shridhar and Others, AIR 1975 MP 21 in which a Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court held that “however the certificate of posting may give rise to the presumption that the letters were posted but no presumption can be drawn that they were received by Respondents 2 and 3.” 5. Sri P.C. Srimal, learned Counsel for the landlord-opposite party contended that there will also be a presumption in case a notice was sent under certificate of posting. In this case the presumption is not rebutted. As such it would be deemed that the said notice was served on the applicant. The learned Counsel in support of his contention referred to Harihar Banerji v. Ramshashi Roy AIR 1918 PC 102 in which it was held that “if a letter properly directed, containing a notice to quit, 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 was received by the person to whom it was addressed and that presumption would 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.” 6. The learned Counsel then made a reference to Dhanapati Devi Vs. The Corporation of Calcutta, AIR 1952 Cal 467 in which it was held that “even in the absence of any specific material raising any presumption, it must accordingly be presumed that the statutory requirements had been complied with and the statutory notices given. Even apart from it, where the records of the proceedings show that the requisite letter for appearance of the Petitioner was sent, under the provisions of Sections 116 and 114 Illus. (f), there must be a presumption that the letter was duly received by Petitioner.” 7. The learned Counsel then referred to a case Sukumar Guha Vs. Even apart from it, where the records of the proceedings show that the requisite letter for appearance of the Petitioner was sent, under the provisions of Sections 116 and 114 Illus. (f), there must be a presumption that the letter was duly received by Petitioner.” 7. The learned Counsel then referred to a case Sukumar Guha Vs. Naresh Chandra Ghosh and Another, AIR 1968 Cal 49 in which case a notice under certificate of posting was sent. In the said case it was held that “although presumption u/s 27, General Clauses Act can only arise when the notice is sent by registered post, there may arise a presumption u/s 114, Evidence Act when notice is sent by post as contemplated by Section 106 T.P. Act irrespective of whether it is sent by ordinary post or under certificate of posting. Both the presumptions are, however, rebuttable. When the cover containing the notice has been returned to the sender by the postal authorities, then that fact is direct proof of the fact that the notice sent by post was not delivered to the party to whom it was addressed.” 8. The learned Counsel then made a reference to the case of Union of India and Another Vs. Kalinga Textiles Ltd. Company and Another, AIR 1969 Bom 401 which was a case under the Railways Act in which it was held that “if a letter properly directed, containing a notice 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 was received by the person to whom it was addressed and that presumption would apply even in the case of a letter sent by ordinary post.” 9. The learned Counsel then relied on the case Kanak Lata Ghose Vs. Amal Kumar Ghose, AIR 1970 Cal 328 in which case a notice under certificate of posting was sent. The court held that the certificate given by the postal authorities in the ordinary course of business must be presumed to be genuine and the presumption will be that the letters posted were received by the addressee and mere denial of receipt of letters will not rebut the said presumption. 10. Learned Counsel then relied on Punnu Mal v. Durga Singh AIR 1967 J&K 141 . 10. Learned Counsel then relied on Punnu Mal v. Durga Singh AIR 1967 J&K 141 . In that case a notice was sent, to the tenant by registered post and there was endorsement that the tenant concealed himself and in these circumstances personal service of notice having failed, copy of notice was affixed on the tenant's residence. It was held that affixation was sufficient compliance with the requirement of law and the notice will be deemed to have been served upon the tenant. 11. Thus Calcutta and Bombay High Courts have taken a particular view, while the view to the contrary has been taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The Bombay and Calcutta High Courts have gone too far in observing that notice, letter or document sent under registered post will rather equate with one sent under certificate of posting. Whenever a certificate of posting is produced the presumption is that in fact such a letter was sent, but there is no such presumption that in fact it was delivered to the addressee in respect of which no entries are made as are made in the case of a registered letter for which specific provisions have been made in the Postal Manual and that is why a very strong presumption attaches to the service of the registered notice. In case of certificate of posting there is no such presumption and the only presumption which can be raised is that the letter must have been delivered to the postman of the place to which the addressee belongs and he must have delivered it at the place of the person and not that delivery has been effected on the person concerned and the position in such a case is not better than that of an ordinary letter. The presumption which could be raised is a rebuttable presumption and in case the tenant denies on oath that no such notice was delivered to him or reached him it can be said that the presumption has been rebutted, more so when the postman is not examined. There may be cases in which under certain circumstances it could be said that the presumption has not been rebutted. There may be cases in which under certain circumstances it could be said that the presumption has not been rebutted. The court below has not approached the case from this angle and without taking into consideration the legal position in this behalf has recorded a finding ignoring even admissible piece of evidence on record unless it is clear that efforts were made to effect personal service which failed and it was impossible to effect personal service or other mode of service, affixation can be resorted in such cases and only then there will be presumption. In the present case it seems that such an evidence is lacking and in case that is so, there cannot be presumption of service by affixation. 12. The trial court did not enter into all these questions and the revisional court without considering the statements of defence witnesses and appreciating the correct legal position has recorded a vague finding. In these circumstances the judgment and decree passed by the revisional court is not in accordance with law. The judgment and decree passed by the court below is set aside and the case is sent back to the revisional court to decide the question of service in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above after taking into consideration the entire evidence on the record. In the circumstances of the case parties are to bear their own costs.