M. S. PARIKH, J. ( 1 ) IN this revision application under Section 29 of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 (for short `the Bombay Rent Act) the petitioner has brought under challenge the judgment and decree dismissing the petitioners (plaintiff - since deceased) suit which was filed by him on the ground of arrears of rent consequent upon the provision contained in Section 12 (2) read with Section 12 (3) (a) of the Bombay Rent Act and also on the ground of erection of permanent structure in the suit premises. ( 2 ) THE suit premises consist of two rooms in property bearing No. T-28/415 let out by the petitioner to the respondent (defendant)-tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 20. 00 for residence. ( 3 ) THE tenant resisted the suit contending that he did not erect any permanent structure in the suit premises that no alterations were made in the suit premises that prior to the suit the plaintiff had filed a suit against him and the same was dismissed that he was not in arrears of rent from 1-5-1972 as alleged that he deposited Rs. 240. 00 on 21-6-1973 in the Court as also Rs. 100 on 1-9-1973 and that whatever rent that fell due was because of the default on the part of the plaintiff to accept the rent. With regard to the eviction notice dated 21-3-1973 he contended that the same was not served on him and that he did not refuse to accept such notice. He also resisted the plaintiffs say about service of notice under certificate of posting by saying that he did not receive such a notice. He raised the dispute of standard rent in the written statement. ( 4 ) THE Trial Court held the question of service of eviction notice in landlords favour and passed decree for eviction and the appellate Court found that the presumption of service of eviction notice was rebutted by the tenant and eviction notice was held not duly served. ( 5 ) XX xx xx. ( 6 ) XX xx xx. ( 7 ) XX xx xx. ( 8 ) IN the result the learned Extra Assistant Judge allowed the appeal set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and directed the respondent to pay the cost of the appellant and bear his own. ( 5 ) XX xx xx. ( 6 ) XX xx xx. ( 7 ) XX xx xx. ( 8 ) IN the result the learned Extra Assistant Judge allowed the appeal set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and directed the respondent to pay the cost of the appellant and bear his own. ( 9 ) IT is the afore-said judgment and decree passed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge dismissing the petitioners suit that has been brought under challenge by the petitioner landlord. ( 10 ) THE petitioner landlord having died during the pendency of the proceedings his heirs have been directed to be brought on record pursuant to the order passed in Civil Application No. 3639 of 1992 ( 11 ) IT is the submission of Mr. Abichandani learned Advocate for the petitioner that the learned Extra Assistant Judge has failed to consider legal presumption arising on account of postal service in as much as the cover containing the notice of eviction addressed to the tenant at his shop address returned with the endorsement `refusal and in as much as another cover addressed to the tenant at his shop address was also sent under certificate of posting. In support of his submission he has placed reliance upon the following decisions : (I) Kulkarni Patterns Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. Vasant Baburao Ashtekar and Ors. reported in 1992 (2) S. C. C. 46. (II) Green View Radio Service v. Laxmibai Ramji and Anr. reported in 1990 (4) S. C. C. 497in the case of Kulkarni Patterns Pvt. Ltd. and Others (supra) three notices were sent by registered post acknowledgement due one of which to tenant-company on its correct address; that being the fact presumption of service of notice was held to be drawn in favour of the respondent-landlord. However the Supreme Court has also referred to the principle that such a presumption can be rebutted by adducing evidence. In the second decision in the case of Green View Radio Service (supra) the Supreme Court has again spoken of presumption of service of notice to the tenant when the acknowledgement was received back from the post office duly signed by the recipient of the notice. At the same time the question of rebuttal has also been considered by the Honble Supreme Court. At the same time the question of rebuttal has also been considered by the Honble Supreme Court. In the head note reproduced from para 3 following observations would need a careful note while dealing with this revision application :"section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act require that notice to quit has to be sent either by post to the party or be tendered or delivered personally to such party or to one of his family members or servants at his residence or if such tender or delivery is not practicable affixed to a conspicuous part of the property. The service is complete when the notice is sent by post. In the present case as pointed out earlier the notice was sent by the plaintiffs Advocate by registered post acknowledgement due. The acknowledgement signed by the party was received by the Advocate of the plaintiff. Thus the presumption of service of a letter sent by registered post can be rebutted by the addressee by appearing as witness and stating that he never received such letter. If the acknowledgement due receipt contains the signature of the addressee himself and the addressee as a witness states that he never received such letter and the acknowledgement due does not bear his signature and such statement of the addressee is believed then it would be a sufficient rebuttal of the presumption drawn against him. The burden would then shift on the plaintiff who wants to rely on such presumption to satisfy the Court by leading oral or documentary evidence to prove the service of such letter on the addressee. This rebuttal by the defendant of the presumption drawn against him would of course depend on the veracity of his statement. The Court in the facts and circumstances of a case may not consider such denial by the defendant as truthful and in that case such denial alone would not be sufficient. But if there is nothing to disbelieve the statement of the defendant then it would be sufficient rebuttal of the presumption of service of such letter or notice sent in him by registered post". It can be seen from the aforesaid observations that the recipient of the notice can in law adduce evidence on rebuttal of the presumption that arises from the postal service of a communication. It can be seen from the aforesaid observations that the recipient of the notice can in law adduce evidence on rebuttal of the presumption that arises from the postal service of a communication. If the acknowledgement due receipt contains the signature of the addressee himself and the addressee as a witness states that he never received such a letter or communication and the acknowledgement due does not bear his signature and such statement of the addressee is believed then it would be sufficient rebuttal of the presumption that would arise against him from the course of postal service. ( 12 ) MR. Abichandani also referred to one more decision of the Supreme Court contained in the case of Gujarat Electricity Board v. Atmaram reported in AIR 1989 S. C. 1433. He placed reliance upon the observation quoted from para 6 of the citation in head note B and observations quoted from para 8 of the citation in head note C. They (inter alia) read as under : * there is presumption of service of a letter sent under registered cover if the same is returned back with a postal endorsement that the addressee refused to accept the same. No doubt the presumption is rebuttable and it is open to the party concerned to place evidence before the Court to rebut the presumption by showing that the address mentioned on the cover was incorrect or that the postal authorities never tendered the registered letter to him or that there was no occasion for him to refuse the same. The burden to rebut the presumption lies on the party challenging the factum of service. (Para 8) here also the Supreme Court has emphasised that the presumption of service of communication sent under registered post is rebuttable and it is open to the party concerned to place evidence before the Court to rebut the presumption. ( 13 ) MR. G. D. Bhatt learned Advocate for the respondent tenants has rightly relied upon a decision in the case of Anil Kumar v. Nanak Chandra Verma reported in 1990 (2) G. L. H. p. 77 where it was held that there could be no hard and fast rule as to whether bare statement of the tenant was sufficient or not to rebut the presumption of service. ( 14 ) THUS it is clear from the decision of the Supreme Court referred to by Mr. ( 14 ) THUS it is clear from the decision of the Supreme Court referred to by Mr. Abichandani as also by Mr. G. D. Bhatt that the presumption of service of a letter or notice is rebuttable and this is a case whereupon appreciation of evidence the first Appellate Court found as a matter of fact that the presumption was rebutted by the tenant. The learned Extra Assistant Judge considered the evidence in the light of the facts which have been stated by the tenant on oath. The importance of such facts are the facts with regard to the tenant not attending to the shop premises and the cover containing the notice of termination having been addressed at the shop premises. The tenant has in terms stated that he did not have any occasion to refuse the cover nor did he have any occasion to receive any cover sent under certificate of posting. Upon the appreciation of the facts and circumstances arising from the evidence adduced by the tenant the learned Extra Assistant Judge came to a conclusion that the presumption stood rebutted. Nothing is pointed out by Mr. Abichandani from the evidence to show that the learned Extra Assistant Judge has committed any error of law in appreciation of evidence. That precisely is the submission of Mr. G. D. Bhatt learned Advocate for the respondent-tenant. In that view of the matter there is no scope for this Court interfering with the finding about the non-service of required notice under Section 12 (2) of the Bombay Rent Act. Only on that ground the suit of the plaintiff was liable to be dismissed. ( 15 ) XX xx xx ( 16 ) XX xx xx ( 17 ) XX xx xx ( 18 ) XX xx xx ( 19 ) XX xx xx ( 20 ) IN view of what is stated above this Revision Application deserves to be dismissed. Rule is therefore discharged with no order as to cost. Revision dismissed. .