PRAKASH KRISHNA,J. ( 1 ) RAISING a small controversy about the service of registered notice by refusal given by the landlord to the tenant as envisaged under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the present writ petition has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the two courts below holding that the presumption of service stands rebutted as the defendant tenant has denied the receipt of notice in his deposition and the postman was not examined. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case may be noticed in brief. A J. S. C. C. Suit No. 39 of 1986 was instituted by the grandfather of the petitioners against Shri Ghanshyam, respondent no. 3 herein, for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and pendente lite and future mesne profit on the ground that the tenant is in arrears of rent for a period of four months and has failed to pay the same in spite of notice of demand and termination. A registered notice dated 30th of November, 1985 was sent to the respondent tenant demanding the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 1270/- from Miti Bhadon Badi-1 Sambat 2032 corresponding to 22nd of August, 1975 along with Rs. 30/- as cost of notice total Rs. 1,300/- within a month of receipt of notice. It was stated that on a monthly rent of Rs. 10/- the respondent (defendant) is the tenant of shop No. 27/102/3 situate at Haveli Bahadur Khan, Dhuliaganj, Agra. The tenancy commenced on Miti 1 of every month of Vikrami calender and ends on Sudi 15 (Purnima) of the same month. ( 3 ) THE suit was contested on a number of pleas, which are not relevant to be noticed herein except one that the notice of demand and terminating tenancy was never served on him. The trial court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed six issues. Issue no. 1 relating to the validity of the service of notice on the defendant is the only surviving issue and relevant for the purposes of the present writ petition. A copy of the notice dated 30th January, 1985 (Paper No. 20 C), its registered receipt paper No. 21 C and the envelope returned with endorsement of refusal paper No. 22 C have been filed. Ghanshyam, the respondent no. 3 herein examined himself as DW/1. A copy of the notice dated 30th January, 1985 (Paper No. 20 C), its registered receipt paper No. 21 C and the envelope returned with endorsement of refusal paper No. 22 C have been filed. Ghanshyam, the respondent no. 3 herein examined himself as DW/1. In his deposition he has admitted that on the said registered envelope containing the notice the address of his shop, is correctly mentioned. The courts below have held that since the defendant has stated in his deposition that such a notice was never tendered to him, the presumption of service of notice stands rebutted as held in the case of Nawabzada Mohd. Ishaq Khan Vs. The Delhi Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. : AIR 1979 Alld. 366. The said finding of the trial court has been affirmed in revision No. 137 of 1993 preferred by the petitioners by VIIIth Additional District Judge, Agra by the impugned judgment. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his submission has placed reliance upon various judgments such as Ganga Ram Vs. Phulwati AIR 1970 Alld. 446 (FB); Anil Kumar Vs. Nanak Chandra Verma : air 1990 SC 1215 ; Rais Ahmad Vs. Special/additional District Judge, Saharanpur: 1997 (2) ARC 190 and Mani Ram Vs. Vimla Devi : 1997 (2) ARC 644. The golden thread running in all these cases is that if a registered letter is correctly addressed to the addressee and is returned with postal endorsement that the addressee has refused to accept the same when it was tendered to him, a rebuttal presumption about service of notice would be drawn. The learned counsel for the contesting respondent, on the other hand, has placed reliance on the following cases:-1. Puwada Venkateswara Rao Vs. Chidamana Venkata Ramana: 1976 SC 869; 2. Green View Radio Service Vs. Laxmibai Ramji and another: (1990) 4 SCC 497 ; 3. Ram Rati Vs. Fakira : AIR 1988 Alld. 75; 4. Gur Bachan Singh Vs. Dharam Samaj Society : AIR 1981 Alld. 208; 5. Rama Devi and another Vs. Ram Prakash and others: AIR 1985 Alld. 17; and 6. Shiv Dutt Singh Vs. Ram Dass: AIR 1980 Alld. 280 considered respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In Ganga Ram Vs. Phulwati (FB) (supra) the matter has been examined in great depth. The question no. 208; 5. Rama Devi and another Vs. Ram Prakash and others: AIR 1985 Alld. 17; and 6. Shiv Dutt Singh Vs. Ram Dass: AIR 1980 Alld. 280 considered respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In Ganga Ram Vs. Phulwati (FB) (supra) the matter has been examined in great depth. The question no. 2 referred therein was as follows:-"whether it is incumbent on the plaintiff to prove the endorsement of refusal on the notice sent by the registered post by producing the postman or other evidence in case the defendant denies service on him?" ( 5 ) THE said question has been answered in negative. This being so it follows that it is not necessary for a plaintiff to examine the postman if the notice was duly dispatched through post office by registered post to correct address of tenant. Presumption of service is available under the illustrations (e) and (f) of Evidence Act. It has been held that under such circumstances the landlord need not prove that the tenant after having received the notice has actually read it and understood its contents. In Anil Kumar Vs. Nanak Chand (supra) the Apex Court has expressly overruled a decision of this Court in Shiv Dutt Singh Vs. Ram Das : AIR 1980 Alld. 280 (relied upon by the respondent) and has held that there can be no hard and fast rule and unchallenged testimony of a tenant in certain cases may be sufficient to rebut the presumption. But if the testimony of tenant is inherently unreliable, the position may be different. ( 6 ) COMING to the facts of the case, it may be noticed that the courts below have proceeded with the case on the footing that as there is a denial of refusal by the defendant tenant, the report of refusal cannot be accepted to be proved as the burden lay on the plaintiffs to prove the service of notice. The said approach of the courts below cannot be approved in view of authoritative pronouncements of Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ganga Ram (supra) as also that of the Apex Court, referred to above. The mere denial by a defendant tenant is not sufficient to rebut the presumption of service as held by the Apex Court in the case of Anil Kumar (supra ). The mere denial by a defendant tenant is not sufficient to rebut the presumption of service as held by the Apex Court in the case of Anil Kumar (supra ). A copy of the statement of the defendant has been annexed as Annexure-6 to the affidavit. He has stated that he is not a defaulter and has paid the rent up to date but this plea has not been accepted by the courts below. He has admitted that correct address is mentioned on the registered envelope. In this view of the matter, the presumption of service unless proved otherwise, is available to the plaintiff landlord and the said presumption does not stand rebutted by a mere denial of the plaintiff. The above view is in consonance of the Full Bench decision of this Court. The learned trial judge dismissed the plea of presumption simply on the ground that the defendant tenant had denied the tendering of registered envelope and has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Learned Single Judge in Nawabzada Mohd. Ishaq Khan (supra ). The attention of the Learned Single Judge was not drawn to the earlier Full Bench Decision of this Court in the case of Ganga Ram (supra ). Even in the said judgment it has been said by the Learned Judge that "when a report of the nature endorsed by the postman in the instant case was made, it was the duty of the Court when full facts were placed before it with an affidavit by the person adversely affected by the impugned order, to go more deeply into the facts of the case and not to accept implicitly the report of the postman as gospel truth without even calling upon the respondent to examine such postman. " ( 7 ) IN view of the above discussion, I find sufficient force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that from the facts of the present case the presumption of due service of registered notice was not rebutted by the mere denial of the defendant tenant that no such notice was tendered to him. ( 8 ) IN Puwada Venkateswara Rao Vs. Chidamana Venkata Ramana: 1976 SC 869 it has been laid down only this much that it is not always necessary in such cases to produce the postman who tried to effect service. ( 8 ) IN Puwada Venkateswara Rao Vs. Chidamana Venkata Ramana: 1976 SC 869 it has been laid down only this much that it is not always necessary in such cases to produce the postman who tried to effect service. A denial of service by a party may be found to be incorrect from its own admission or conduct. ( 9 ) THE same view has been reiterated in Indus Bhushan Vs. Munna Lal AIR 2007 SC 1114 . In Har Charan Singh Vs. Shiv Rani and others AIR 1981 SC 1284 by majority it has been held that when a registered envelope is tendered by a postman to the addressee but he refused to accept it, there is due service effected upon the addressee by refusal; the addressee must, therefore, be imputed with the knowledge of the contents thereof and and, this follows upon the presumptions that are raised under section 27 of the General Clauses Act 1897 and section 114 of the Evidence Act. In view of the above, the findings recorded by the trial court under Issue no. 1 as confirmed by the revisional court is legally untenable and the same is hereby reversed. It is held that the notice of demand and termination was validly served on the defendant tenant (the respondent no. 3 herein ). The plaintiffs have proved the service of notice dated 30th November, 1985 on the defendant tenant. ( 10 ) SO far as the question of default in payment of rent is concerned, it has been found by the trial court under Issue No. 2 that the defendant tenant has not paid any rent since the year 1975 and is in arrears of rent w. e. f. Miti Bhadon Badi-1 Sambat 2032. Under Issue no. 4 the trial court has found that the plea that the defendant tenant is entitled to adjust the payment of taxes made by him to the local authorities is unfounded. The defendant tenant is not entitled to adjust the said payment towards the arrears of rent. Those findings have not been disturbed by the revisional court. The learned counsel for the contesting respondent before this Court has made no attempt to challenge those findings. The defendant tenant is not entitled to adjust the said payment towards the arrears of rent. Those findings have not been disturbed by the revisional court. The learned counsel for the contesting respondent before this Court has made no attempt to challenge those findings. It consequently follows that the defendant tenant is in arrears of rent for more than four months and is liable for eviction as provided for under section 20 (2) (a) of the said Act. ( 11 ) A new point was sought to be urged before this Court by the learned counsel for the contesting respondent that there is no demand of arrears of rent through the said notice. But the said point was not pursued further when it was pointed out to him that there is a specific demand towards the latter part of the notice after para 8. ( 12 ) IN view of the above discussion, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The judgments and decrees of the two courts below dismissing the suit are hereby set aside by quashing the judgment dated 25th January, 1993 passed by the trial court and dated 21st April, 2001 passed by the revisional court so far as they relate to service of notice is concerned. The suit for ejectment, recovery of arrears of rent w. e. f. 22nd August, 1975 at the rate of Rs. 10/- per month amounting to Rs. 360/- for three years with pendente lite and future mesne profit, stands decreed together with cost of the notice amounting to Rs. 30/-, total Rs. 390/-, as the relief for earlier part is time barred and has not been prayed for in the suit. In other words, the suit no. 39 of 1986 stands decreed in toto together with costs throughout. ( 13 ) AT the end, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 prayed for six months time to vacate the accommodation in dispute to which the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has no serious objection. He fairly accepts that some reasonable time may be granted to the respondent No. 3. ( 13 ) AT the end, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 prayed for six months time to vacate the accommodation in dispute to which the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has no serious objection. He fairly accepts that some reasonable time may be granted to the respondent No. 3. The respondent is permitted to remain in the disputed accommodation till 30th September, 2009 provided he files an undertaking on affidavit within a period of one month before the Prescribed Authority that he will vacate the disputed accommodation and will hand over the peaceful vacant possession to the petitioners on or before 30th of September, 2009. The respondent no. 3 shall also deposit the arrears of rent including future rent up to 30th September, 2009 within a period of one month. ( 14 ) IN case of default of either of the conditions as stipulated above, the time granted by this Court shall stand vacated automatically and it shall be open to the landlord to apply for execution of the decree. If the respondent no. 3 fails to vacate the accommodation in dispute on or before 30th September, 2009, the executing court shall issue a writ for delivery of possession as soon as it is applied for. .