JUDGMENT Hon'ble Shishir Kumar,J. Heard Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel appearing for petitioner. 2. This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 25.11.2009 and order dated 4.12.2004 (Annexures 13 and 6 to writ petition). 3. Respondents being landlord filed a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment before the Judge, Small Causes Court after issuance of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Petitioner filed an objection that suit is not maintainable before the Judge, Small Causes Court in view of the fact that there is no relationship of landlord-tenant and in view of Section 23 of the Provincial Small Causes Court, plaint be returned to proper court for presentation to try regular suit. The said application was rejected. The Judge, Small Causes Court after due consideration was pleased to decreed the suit and revision filed by petitioner has been dismissed. 4. Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel appearing for petitioner has submitted that service of notice was not sufficient and it was pleaded before the court but court has not recorded a specific finding that whether it was served or not. Only on the ground that there is an endorsement by the postman, it has been refused, in such circumstances, the Court has recorded a finding that service upon petitioner is sufficient. Further a specific issue was framed that whether there is a relationship of landlord and tenant. Petitioner denied that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant but Court has recorded a finding against the evidence on record. Sri Asthana has placed reliance upon Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported in 1983 Allahabad Rent Cases, 422 Zafri Ahmad and others Vs. Satish Kumar and others. Placing reliance upon the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for petitioner submits that in absence of lease deed, which required registration was necessary and admittedly lease deed /rent note was not registered, therefore, rent note alleged by landlord and respondent cannot be taken into consideration for the purposes of relationship of landlord and tenant and in view of Division Bench judgment of this Court, as the registration was required, therefore, that is no admissible in evidence and placing reliance upon the aforesaid rent note, the Judge, Small Causes Court cannot decreed the suit. Petitioner has also placed reliance upon two judgments of this Court reported in AIR 1990 (Supreme Court) 1214 and AIR 1986 (1) 475. Petitioner has also placed reliance upon two judgments of this Court reported in AIR 1990 (Supreme Court) 1214 and AIR 1986 (1) 475. Placing reliance upon aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for petitioner submits that in case, petitioner denied the factum of refusal of the notice sent by the landlord the postman should have been examined. No examination of the postman was made, therefore, the finding to this effect that service of notice was sufficient is not correct. 5. In view of aforesaid fact, learned counsel for petitioner submits that judgment and order passed by court below are liable to be quashed. 6. I have perused the record and considered the argument raised on behalf of petitioner. The Apex Court in AIR 1989 Supreme Court, 630 M/s Madan and others Vs. Wazir Jaichand has held that if a notice has been sent by registered post on a correct address, then service will be treated to be sufficient. In 2006(3) JCLR, 26 (Allahabad) Prakash Chandra Gupta Vs. Soberan Singh and in 2006 UPRCC, 468, Krishna Chandra Vs. Addl.District Judge, Gorakhpur this Court has held that if notice has been sent by registered post, then it is not necessary that the postman may be examined. Further in AIR 2002(Supreme Court), 3557, Basant Singh Vs. Roman Catholic Mission, the Apex Court has further held that were the notice and summon has been sent by registered post on a correct address, then a presumption will be that service is sufficient and to prove otherwise, it is the duty of the addressee to prove that service was not sufficient and burden will be upon him to examine a postman regarding sufficiency of service. Admittedly petitioner has not taken any step to examine the postman neither the servant who has told the postman that petitioner is out of station, has been examined. Mere denial by petitioner-tenant is not sufficient that service upon tenant was not made. As regards the submissions made by petitioner regarding service of notice, I am of opinion that in view of aforesaid judgments of this Court as well as the Apex Court, in case, the registered notice has been sent on correct address and the postman endorsed that it has been refused then presumption will be that notice have been served and mere denial by the tenant is not sufficient. He has to prove either on the basis of statement of the postman or otherwise that endorsement in the notice is incorrect. 7. As regards the submissions of Mr.Asthana, regarding registration of rent note is concerned, in my opinion petitioner is not claiming himself to be landlord. He has denied that respondent is not landlord, cannot be a basis that there is a denial. As soon as the tenant denied the title of the landlord, burden shifted upon tenant to prove who is landlord and in case he claims himself to be landlord he has to prove it but it is not the case of petitioner. In such circumstances, I am of opinion that both the courts below have considered each and every document and rent note which was executed between the parties and has recorded a finding that there is relationship of landlord and tenant, a notice is sufficiently been served and petitioner is in default. In my opinion, if such findings have been recorded on the basis of relevant record, it cannot be interfered while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by this Court being a finding of fact. 8. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed, however, without imposing any cost.