Judgment The order of dismissal of the Ejectment Suit No.19 of 1997 on the file of the Court of IV Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, is under challenge before this Court under this revision. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. Inspite of service of notice, there is no representation for the respondent. 3. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, plaintiff is A/M.Byragi Madam Sri Venkatesa Perumal Temple represented by its Manager and the suit for ejectment was filed against the defendant, who is the tenant under the plaintiff, and that the defendant was in callous indifference in paying the monthly rent to the plaint schedule building, which is in occupation of the defendant and the arrears of rent amount till the end of December-1996 comes to Rs.21,000/-. Hence, the plaintiff issued notice to quit under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act dated 111. 1996. But the said notice was returned by the postal department. The defendant in his written statement had raised two contentions as 1) there was no arrears of rent and 2) the quit notice issued by the plaintiff is not in accordance with law. 4. The learned trial Judge, after framing four issues for trial after considering the oral and documentary evidence let in on the side of the plaintiff, has erroneously dismissed the suit holding that the suit notice issued by the plaintiff under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act (Ex.A.1) is not in accordance with law, which necessitated the plaintiff to prefer this revision. 5. According to the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff Ex.A.1-notice was sent through the registered post on 111. 1996 giving 15 days time for the defendant to quit and deliver vacant possession of the plaint schedule property by 012. 1996. The said notice under Ex.A.1 was not received by the defendant, but it was returned by the postal department with an endorsement "not claimed". 6. Relying on 1972 TNLJ 546 (A.E.K.Kaliappa Nadar Vs. 1996 giving 15 days time for the defendant to quit and deliver vacant possession of the plaint schedule property by 012. 1996. The said notice under Ex.A.1 was not received by the defendant, but it was returned by the postal department with an endorsement "not claimed". 6. Relying on 1972 TNLJ 546 (A.E.K.Kaliappa Nadar Vs. S.V.K.R.Amirtha Valawandammal and another), the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that it is to be presumed under Section 114 of the Evidence Act coupled with Section 27 of the General Clauses Act that Ex.A.1-notice was valid notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act since 15 days time has been given to the defendant as contemplated under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act to quit and handover vacant possession of the plaint schedule property. The relevant observation in the above said dictum relevant for the purpose of deciding this revision runs as follows:- "When once one of the methods contemplated by Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, namely, sending the notice by post to the correct address of the tenant by the landlord, is adopted, a presumption follows not merely with reference to Section 27 of the General Clauses Act but also section 114 of the Evidence Act that it had reached the addressee. But the presumption is a rebuttable one and it may be shown by the tenant that he had actually no notice of it." 7. In this case on the side of the defendant there was neither oral nor documentary evidence was let in before the trial Court. There was no rebuttal evidence on the side of the defendant to deny that he had no notice about Ex.A.1. But the only thing is that the postal endorsement on Ex.A.1 shows that the postman had endorsed, only on 111. 1996 as to the effect that door was locked. Even though there is a postal stamp on Ex.A.1 as to the effect that it was posted on 111. 1996 there is no evidence on record to show that when it reached the addressee. If it reached addressee only on 111. 1996 then it cannot be said that the notice is valid under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. On the other hand if the notice had reached on 111. 1996 or 111. 1996 there is no evidence on record to show that when it reached the addressee. If it reached addressee only on 111. 1996 then it cannot be said that the notice is valid under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. On the other hand if the notice had reached on 111. 1996 or 111. 1996 then it can be presumed that there is a valid notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. 8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner at this juncture would point out that under Section 106(3) of the transfer of Property Act and contended that even though the period mentioned in the notice falls short of the period specified under Sub-Section 1 of Section 106 of Transfer of Property, the suit cannot be held to be not maintainable. 9. But now the question whether the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is valid or not is to be decided in this case. The suit was not dismissed on the ground of maintainability, but only on the ground that the notice issued under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act was not in accordance with law. Under such circumstance, I am of the view that the plaintiff has to discharge the burden that the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was received by the addressee through the post office before 111. 1996. 10. In fine, the Revision is allowed and the Judgment of the learned trial Judge in Ejectment Suit No.19 of 1997 on the file of the Court of IVth Judge, Court of Small Causes Court, Chennai, is set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial Court for giving an opportunity to the plaintiff to prove that Ex.A.1-notice had reached the post office of the addressee even before 111. 1996. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. At this juncture the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would represent that the respondent / defendant owes huge arrears of rent. The defendant is directed to pay the arrears of rent on the first date of hearing of the suit after the remand. No costs.