Devinder Gupta ( 1 ) THIS is first appeal against the judgment and decree passed on 2nd December, 1993 by Shir Shiv Charan, Additional District Judge, Delhi decreeing the suit of the plaintiff/respondent for ejectment of the defendant/appellant from flat in question bearing No. A/61, 6th floor, Himalaya House, 23, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. ( 2 ) THE facts in brief are that the flat in question was let out by the plaintiff/respondent to the defendant/appellant for a term of three years with effect from 1st March, 1971 through a lease agreement dated 1st March, 1971 with an option to the defendant to renew the lease for a farther period of two years. It is the admitted case ofthe parties that the lease stood renewed for the period upto 28th February, 1976 whereafter again the appellant continued in occupation on further extension of lease upto 28th February, 1979. Plaintiffs case has been that on and from 1st March, 1979, in the absence of any extension in the period of lease, defendant/appellant being in occupation became monthly tenant, according to English calender,and the month beginning with the 1st day of every English calender month and ending with the last day of the month. On 17th September, 1990, a notice to vacate and surrender peaceful possession was sent calling upon the defendant to hand over the possession to the plaintiff by the end of 31st October, 1990. The notice was duly served and on failure to vacate on 1st November, 1990, suit was filed. ( 3 ) THE suit was contested by the defendant on number of grounds, the primary being that the relationship of lessor and lessee between the parties is on permanent lease agreement, period of lease being automatically renewable on the lessee expressing to intention to renew. The alleged notice of termination had been got issued malafide being invalid and ineffective does not give rise to any cause of action to the plaintiff to claim possession. The defendant pleaded that its occupation was on a permanent lease or in any case lease was renewable unilaterally by the defendant exercising its option and thus stood renewed from time to time and there has been no valid termination of tenancy. The parties were taken to trial on the following issues:- 1. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? O. P. D. 2. The parties were taken to trial on the following issues:- 1. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? O. P. D. 2. Whether the suit as framed is not maintainable in the civil court? O. P. D. 3. Whether the tenancy of the defendant was validly terminated by the plaintiff? O. P. P. 4. Relief. ( 4 ) THE defendant was held to be occupying the premises as a tenant under lease agreement effective upto 28th February, 1979. It was held with effect from 1st March, 1979, the occupation of the defendant has been as a tenant from month to month the commencing from 1st day of each English calender month and ending on the last day of the same month. Notice Ext. P. 5 was held to be valid by which the monthly tenancy stood validly terminated. Plaintiff was held to be having a cause of action to claim possession. Decree for possession was passed. It is this judgment and decree which is under challenge. ( 5 ) THE sole ground which was urged by learned counsel for the appellant during me course of arguments was that no legal and valid notice terminating the tenancy was ever served by the plaintiff on the Defendant before institution of the suit and as such there has been no valid termination of tenancy. Defendant is thus continuing in occupation of the flat in question as a tenant. In other words, the contention has been that it is not proved on record that notice Ext. P. 5 was served on the defendant. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken us through the entire evidence on record. ( 6 ) HAVING considered the submissions made at the Bar and having gone through the record, we do not find any force in the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant. ( 7 ) FIRST dealing with the pleadings, we may observe that no such plea was ever taken by the defendant/appellant that notice Ex. P. 5 dated 17th September, 1990 was not served upon it. The plea, which the defendant took was that the notice is not legal and valid. ( 7 ) FIRST dealing with the pleadings, we may observe that no such plea was ever taken by the defendant/appellant that notice Ex. P. 5 dated 17th September, 1990 was not served upon it. The plea, which the defendant took was that the notice is not legal and valid. Plaintiff in para 6 of the plaint specifically alleged that by virtue of notice dated 17th September, 1990 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act duly served upon the defendant on 25th September, 1990 terminated the tenancy of the defendant from the end of 31st October, 1990 and requested the defendant to vacate and surrender peaceful and vacant possession of the flat by the end of 31st October, 1990. To para 6 of the plaint, the defendant pleaded denied that the plaintiff by virtue of notice dated 17th September, 1990 can terminate the tenancy of the defendant. It was pleaded that the lease has not been determined. The defendant continues to be a tenant. The possession of defendant is legal and valid and is that of a contractual tenant. The defendant is holding the premises as a permanent tenant. The defendant is prepared to pay the rent. The lease cannot be terminated. The notice mentioned in this para is not duly served on the defendant. The lease is permanent and plaintiff has no right to terminate the lease. ( 8 ) IN the light of the above pleadings, the parties led their evidence. On behalf of the plaintiff, P. W. 1 Shri Inder Sharma appeared as a witness, who stated that notice for termination of tenancy was issued through advocate. Copy of notice was proved as Ext. P. 5. Postal receipt Ext. P. 6 to Ext. P. 8 and acknowledgement receipts Ext. P. 9 to Ext. P. l 1. He stated that the address of the defendant was correctly mentioned in the notice and that he was earlier having correspondence with the defendant on the same address. The defendant did not give any reply to the notice, nor complied with the notice. It was not suggested to the witness that the three addresses on which notice Ex. P. 5 was sent were not the addresses of the company or that the three notices on the same address were not received. The defendant did not give any reply to the notice, nor complied with the notice. It was not suggested to the witness that the three addresses on which notice Ex. P. 5 was sent were not the addresses of the company or that the three notices on the same address were not received. This witness was cross examined with a view to prove the case set- up by the defendant that since the registered office of the defendant company was located at Scope Complex, Lodhi Estate at which address notice had not been served and not with a view to put any question that notice Ext. P. 5 was not received at the three addresses mentioned therein. The relevant portion of the statement of this witness in cross examination is as follows:- "at present, I am Chairman of Sita World Travels. It is correct that M/s. Sita Travels has got business dealings with India Tourism Development Corporation. It is correct that I have inter acted in the past and in the present with the Chairman ITDC. lam not aware if registered office of ITDC is located at Scope Complex, Lodi Estate. To my knowledge, registered office of ITDC was located at Jiwan Vihar, Parliament Street and I was not aware about the change of new address of ITDC. It is wrong to suggest that I knew the registered address of ITDC but I deliberately wrote wrong address of the office in my notice. It is incorrect that notice was never sent to registered office of ITDC. " ( 9 ) THE only witness examined by the defendant is DW. 1, Shri Raj Sharma, Manager Administration of the defendant, who stated that plaintiff never sent a notice and never asked the defendant to vacate the premises, In examinatinon-in-chief he stated that notice Ex. P. 5 was not received. During cross examination, he admitted that notice Ex. P. 5 bears the correct address of the defend and it is correct that all correspondence and letters on this address are received by the defendant corporation. ( 10 ). Notice Ext. P. 5 was sent at the three addresses of the defendant; namely, (1) Jiwan Vihar, 3, Parliament Street, New Delhi; (2) 6th Floor, Flat No. A-61, Himalaya House, 23, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi; and (3) The Secretary, India Torsism Development Corporation Ltd. , Scope Complex, Core-8, 6th Floor, Lodi Road, New Delhi. ( 10 ). Notice Ext. P. 5 was sent at the three addresses of the defendant; namely, (1) Jiwan Vihar, 3, Parliament Street, New Delhi; (2) 6th Floor, Flat No. A-61, Himalaya House, 23, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi; and (3) The Secretary, India Torsism Development Corporation Ltd. , Scope Complex, Core-8, 6th Floor, Lodi Road, New Delhi. ( 11 ) THE three postal receipts Ext. P. 6, Ext. P. 7 and Ext. P. 8 are for sending the copies of the notices on the three addresses and Ext. P. 9, Ext. P. 10 and Ext. P. 11 are the acknowledgment receipts duly received back by the plaintiff with signatures of the addressee thereupon. Ext. P. 9 records the address as "the Secretary, India Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. , Scope Complex, Core-8,6th floor, 7, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. " Ext. P. 10 records as "india Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. , Jeevan Vihar, 3, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001" and Ext. P. 11 records as "india Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. , 6th Floor, Flat No. A-61, Hiamlaya House, 23, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi". The last address admittedly is the address of the flat in question of which eviction is sought. ( 12 ) AS noticed above, in the pleadings it was nowhere stated that notice Ext. P. 5 had not been received at the three given addresses. It is not stated or pleaded that the three addresses are not the correct addresses on which postal articles are not received. Plea has been that a valid notice has not been served. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the pleadings, when notice for eviction is proved to have sent by registered post acknowledgment due on the three addresses, which are not shown to be incorrect addresses and acknowledgements have been received back with receipant s signatures, there is the presumption arising that the addressee has received the letters in due course of business, In the first instance, it is not disputed that the address mentioned in the notice and the three acknowledgement receipts are not the correct addresses of the defendant corporation on which letters are not received by the defendant corporation. In view of this evidence, it was necessary for the defendant to have led evidence, after taking a proper plea in the written statement that no notice ever served. In view of this evidence, it was necessary for the defendant to have led evidence, after taking a proper plea in the written statement that no notice ever served. In fact such a plea was not taken. In view of the positive pleadings of the plaintiff that notice dated 17th September, 1990 was sent and duly served and in view of the evasive denial in the pleading it has to be inferred that the factum of the receipt of notice was not in dispute. Only legality and validity of the notice was in dispute. In M/s. Green View Radio Service vs. Laxmibai Ramji and another AIR. 1990 S. C. 2156, the Supreme Court raised such a presumption where a notice was sent by registered acknowledgement due to the correct address and acknwoledgement was received back with recepient s signatures, holding that there is presumption that the addressee has received the letter in due course of business. In order to rebut the evidence, it will be necessary for the other party to appear in witness box and state that such notices were not received at the given addresses. In view of the above we are of the view that the trial court rightly came to the conclusion that the notice Ex. P. 5 was duly served on the defendant. ( 13 ) AS regards the validity of the notice, we do not find any lacuna therein. The notice clearly recites that the monthly tenancy was terminated by the end of 31st October, 1990. The notice also called upon the Defendant to deliver possession to the plaintiff. ( 14 ) NO other point was urged or agitated. ( 15 ) IN view of the above, we do not find any ground to interfere in the finding recorded by the trial court that tenancy of the defendant was duly terminated and despite service of notice the defendant failed to vacate the premises. The appeal accordingly is liable to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed.