JUDGMENT Miss Kamlesh Sharma, J.-This appeal is directed against the decree and judgment dated 5-6-1993 of Additional District Judge (I), Shimla, whereby the appeal of appellant-defendant Satish Kumar was dismissed and the decree and judgment dated 24-8-1990 of Sub-Judge 1st Class (2), Shimla, was affirmed. The Sub-Judge 1st Class had decreed the suit of the respondents-plaintiffs Ram Piari and four others, for possession of the premises consisting of four rooms, laterine and bath room in Prithvi Chand building standing on Khasra No. 343, Khata/Khatauni No 3/3 situated at Kasumpti Bazar, Shimla, fully detailed and described in Para 1 of the plaint (hereinafter called the premises in dispute). 2. Admittedly, the premises in dispute have been in possession of Satish Kumar as a tenant under Prithvi Chand owner landlord, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents-defendants. The suit was instituted by Prithvi Chand but during its pendency in the trial Court, he died and the respondents-plaintiffs were brought on record. Before instituting the suit, Prithvi Chand had sent notice dated 30-6-1987 under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act to Satish Kumar by registered post terminating his tenancy and requiring him to handover the vacant possession on 31-7-1987. 3. Satish Kumar in his written statement took the stand that, "......The tenancy has not been terminated, No notice as alleged was received by the defendant. As the tenancy has not been terminated, the suit is not maintainable. In any case, the alleged notice is illegal". Further, in his statement made in the Court, Satish Kumar had simply denied the receipt of notice Ex P-l, though he had admitted that the address given therein was his correct address. On the other hand, Suresh Kumar (PW 1), one of the respondents-plaintiffs, placed on record copy of notice Ex P-l as well as postal receipt Ex. P-2 whereby it was sent to Satish Kumar by registered post. He has also produced postal certificate Ex P-3 wherein the postal authorities have stated that registered letter No. 8001 dated 30-6-1987 was delivered on 9-7-1987 to Satish Kumar at his address given therein. On this evidence, both the Courts have come to the conclusion that notice Ex. P-l is presumed to have been duly served upon Satish Kumar as provided under section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act read with section 27 of the General Clauses Act 4. Challenging the findings of both the Courts below, Sh. On this evidence, both the Courts have come to the conclusion that notice Ex. P-l is presumed to have been duly served upon Satish Kumar as provided under section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act read with section 27 of the General Clauses Act 4. Challenging the findings of both the Courts below, Sh. Bhupender Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for Satish Kumar, has pointed out that the certificate of the postal authorities, Ex P-3, production of which was objected to, could not be relied upon by the Courts below as it was not proved by either producing the record of the postal authorities or the official who issued it. Sh. Gupta further submits that in view of the denial of Satish Kumar that he did not receive the notice Ex. P-l and the certificate of postal authorities Ex. P-3 does not bear his signatures, no presumption arose under section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act read with section 27 of the General Clauses Act that the notice Ex. P-1 was delivered to Satish Kumar. 5. This Court does not find any substance in the submission made by Sh. Gupta. Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act provides that in the absence of a contract or local law or usage to the contrary, a lease of immovable property not for agricultural or manufacturing purposes is terminable on fifteen days notice expiring with the end of month of tenancy and every such notice must be in writing signed by or on behalf of the person giving it and either be sent by post to the party who is intended to be bound by it or be tendered or delivered personally to such party or to one of his family or servants at the residence or (if such tender or delivery is not practicable) affixed to a conspicuous part of the property. 6. 6. Section 27 of the General Clauses Act provides that where any act authorises or requires any document to be served by post whether the expression serve or either of the expression give or send or any other expression is used then, unless a different intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting by registered post, a letter containing the document, and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post. 7. As provided in these provisions of law, in the case in hand, the notice Ex. P-1 was in writing, signed on behalf of Prithvi Chand, the then owner landlord of the premises in dispute and was sent by registered post, as such, the service of it was deemed to have been effected on Satish Kumar. From the statement of Surender Kumar, the postal receipt Ex. P-2 produced by him and the statement of Satish Kumar himself, proper addressing, pre-paying and posting of letter containing notice Ex. P-1 by registered post stood proved, therefore both the Courts below were right in deriving presumption by applying the provisions of section 27 of General Clauses Act and Illustration (f) given in section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act that in the common course of business which would have been followed in the present case, the notice Ex. P-l was deemed to have been delivered to addressee Satish Kumar at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of the post. 8. In the words of the learned Judges of the Supreme Court in Ear Charan Singh v. Shiv Rani and others, AIR 1981 SC 1284, section 27 of the General Clauses Act, ",........raises a presumption of due service or proper service if the document sought to be served is sent by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting by registered post to the addressee and such presumption is raised irrespective of whether any acknowledgement due is received from the addressee or not It is obvious that when the section raises the presumption that the service shall be deemed to have been effected it means the addressee to whom the communication is sent must be taken to have known the contents of the document sought to be served upon without anything more". The learned Judges further observed, "......similar presumption is raised under Illustration (f) to section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act whereunder it is stated that the Court may presume that the common course of business has been followed in a particular case, that is to say, when a letter is sent by post by pre-paying and properly addressing it the same has been received by the addressee. Undoubtedly, the presumption both under section 27 of the General Clauses Act as well as under section 114 of the Evidence Act are rebuttable but in the absence of proof to the contrary the presumption of proper service or effective service on the addressee would arise........." (Please also see Memon Adambhai Haji Ismail v. Bhaiya Ramdas Badridas and others, AIR 1975 Guj 54 ; Shiv Dutt Singh v. Ram Doss, AIR 1980 All 280 ; Kirloskar Bros. Ltd. Indore v. Engineering Machinery Mart, Narsinghpur M.P., AIR 1982 MP 75 and Mis. Madan and Co, v. Wazir Jaivir Chand, (1989) 1 SCC 264). 9. In view of the clear position of law, this Court holds that both the Courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that on the proof that notice Ex. P-1 was sent on the correct address to Satish Kumar by pre-paying and posting it by registered post and also that it was not received back, the presumption did arise, that the notice Ex. P-1 was duly served upon Satish Kumar and that he did receive it. So far the certificate of postal authorities Ext P 3 is concerned, this Court finds that it does not bear the signatures of Satish Kumar and the words written thereon are, Sd/ Sh. Satish Kumar c/o D.E.O. Shimla 171001". Therefore, Satish Kumar was right in stating in his cross-examination that it was not signed by him. In the ordinary course, he was not supposed to sign the certificate issued by the postal authorities in respect of delivery of registered letter in question It is also correct that this certificate of postal authorities has not been proved in accordance with law but even if it is not taken into account, the presumption that notice Ex. P-1 was served upon and received by Satish Kumar was complete. 10. P-1 was served upon and received by Satish Kumar was complete. 10. The next question arises whether the above stated presumption stood rebutted by mere denial of Satish Kumar in his statement in the Court that he did not receive it. The answer is in the negative. Once he accepted that the address given on Ex. P-l was his correct address, the presumption could be rebutted had Satish Kumar brought some evidence on record that he was not available on the address given in Ex. P-1 during the period 30-6-1987 to 9-7-1987 in which the letter would have been delivered to him in the normal course of post or that it was delivered to some other person or any such circumstance which would have shown that the usual course of post was interrupted and it was not possible to effect the service of notice Ex P-1 on him, In the absence of such evidence, the presumption of service of notice upon Satish Kumar was not rebutted. No other point is raised by Sh. Bhupender Gupta.The result of the above discussion is that there is no merit in this appeal and it is rejected in limine. Costs easy. Appeal dismissed.