R. A. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Application under sec. 29 (2) of the Bombay Rent Act is directed against a decree for possession passed by the lower appellate Court on the ground of arrears of rent. ( 2 ) THE trial Court had held that there was no proof of service of notice under sec. 12 (2) and therefore the decree for possession on the ground of arrears of rent was refused. The lower appellate Court held that the defendant had refused to accept the notice by registered post and therefore the notice was deemed to have been served and as the tenant had failed to deposit the arrears of rent exceeding six months he was liable to be vacated. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner-defendant has submitted that this finding regarding deemed service of notice and refusal to accept is perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. The learned Counsel for the opponent-plaintiff has submitted that refusal is a question of fact to be decided on appreciation of evidence and there is no case for interference in this revision application. ( 4 ) THE plaintiffs obviously have no personal knowledge about the service of notice. The plaintiffs have examined the postman at Ex. 50. He has stated that he has written an endorsement refused-dated 31 because the owner refused to take it. In the cross-examination he has stated that on 31-3-1975 he was new in Anjar and he had not seen the defendant Oza Kumbhar Naran Ala prior to it and the man who was present in the house had refused to accept the same. He has further stated that the person who was in the house had stated that he was Naran Ala but the postman was not knowing him personally. In view of this evidence there is no satisfactory proof that the person who refused to accept the notice was the defendant himself. The defendant in his deposition has categorically stated that not only he had not refused to accept the notice hut he was not in the town in those days and he was at Anand. His evidence is also supported by the evidence of Gabha Bachu Ex. 77. ( 5 ) THE evidence regarding refusal of notice must be very clear and convincing. His evidence is also supported by the evidence of Gabha Bachu Ex. 77. ( 5 ) THE evidence regarding refusal of notice must be very clear and convincing. The reason is that there are very drastic consequences of such deemed service of notice. It is not unknown or unusual where these kinds of endorsements have been got made by the postman without proper care and sometimes deliberately false. The tenant would not know about such notice at all and would become liable for eviction with no defence if such deemed service is accepted. Having regard to the very drastic consequence and the easiness with which such endorsement refused may be available it becomes the duty of the Court to see that there is very clear and convincing evide-nce about the service of deemed notice by fiction. In such cases there is no dispute that there is no actual service and therefore the tenant is not in a position to comply with such notice. If by mere deeming fiction such service is required to be and deemed to be a good service the consequences would be very drastic for the said tenant. Therefore the Court has to be extra-careful in accepting the evidence regarding refusal and deemed service. ( 6 ) IN the present case the tenant has deposed on oath that he had not refused the service of notice and he was not in the town at the time when he is alleged to have refused the service of notice. The postman who has made the endorsement admits that he does not know the defendant. No attempt was made in the Court to see that the postman identifies the defendant as the person to whom he had tried served the notice. In view of such state of evidence on record the lower appellate Court could not have come to the conclusion that the notice is deemed to have been served. ( 7 ) IT is also stated that the notice was also sent under certificate of posting and that also is deemed to have been served. It is not possible to accept this contention. In the case of Mahant Madhavramji v. Ambalal Nagarji Naik; 1985 GLH 361 it has been held as follows:the notice sent under certificate of posting though presumed to have reached the defendant-tenant cannot be said to be a legal and valid service as contemplated by sec. It is not possible to accept this contention. In the case of Mahant Madhavramji v. Ambalal Nagarji Naik; 1985 GLH 361 it has been held as follows:the notice sent under certificate of posting though presumed to have reached the defendant-tenant cannot be said to be a legal and valid service as contemplated by sec. 12 (2) of the Rent Act read with sec. 105 of the Transfer of Property Act read with sec 27 of the General Clauses Act. The learned District Judge rightly reached the conclusion that the notice was not a legal and valid one on this ground. When the notice as contemplated by sec. 12 (2) is not found to be a legal and valid notice; then it is obvious that the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover possession of the suit property on the strength of such a notice. there cannot be any dispute with this position of law because unless a legal and valid notice as required by see. 12 (2) of the Bombay Rent Act is served either in fact or by presumption the plaintiff could not have filed the suit for possession on the ground of non-payment of rent. ( 8 ) IN view of the above discussion it is clear that the opponent- landlord has not complied with the conditions of sec. 12/2) and therefore he is not entitled to the possession under sec. 12 (3) (a) of the Rent Act There is no dispute that the requirements of sec. 12 (3) (b) have been complied with by deposit of rent at appropriate times. ( 9 ) IN the result the revision application succeeds and the decree for possession passed by the lower appellate Court is quashed and reversed and the suit of the plaintiff stands dismissed. Rule made absolute with no order as to costs. Revision allowed : Suit dismissed. .