Sudhir Agarwal, J.:— Pursuant to this Court's order dated 21. 04. 2003 notices were issued to respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 by P. P. A. D. I have-perused the report dated 13. 08. 2012. Service is deemed sufficient. Neither anyone has appeared'on behalf of respondent no. 3 nor she herself is present. 2. I have heard Sri K. K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. 3. The respondent no. 3 filed S. C. C. Suit No. 150 of 1997 for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent from petitioners in the court of Small Cause, Kanpur Nagar. Summons/notices were issued to petitioners-tenants by Trial Court. It appears that registered envelops were returned by postal authorities with endorsement "not claimed". The Trial Court then passed order on 13.01.1998 for publication of summon. 4. The plaintiff-respondent thereafter filed three registered envelops on 03.02.1998 showing that same were returned by postal authorities with endorsement "not claimed", whereupon the Trial Court passed order on 20.03.1998 treating service sufficient and proceeded to decide suit and passed an ex pane decree on 03.04.1999. 5. The petitioners filed application for setting aside ex parte decree stating that they were never served notice. The application was rejected by Trial Court vide order dated 10.07.2000 and Revision No. 207 of 2002 has also been dismissed by Revisional Court on 13.03.2003. 6. It is contended that once the Trial Court treated service by registered post unsatisfactory and passed order dated 13.01.1998 for publication, and, the said order was not recalled, it was not open to it not to ensure compliance thereof and instead proceed to deem service sufficient and pass ex parte decree. 7. The courts below however have taken a view that postal endorsement "not claimed" is at par with "refusal" and hence the service would be deemed sufficient. 8. It is no doubt true that a letter sent by registered post raises presumption that it must have reached the addressee unless proved otherwise provided the address mentioned thereon, of addressee is correct. This presumption is based on the principle that postal department, a Government Agency, its officials must have acted in ordinary course of business unless proved otherwise vide Section 114(g) of Evidence Act. This presumption however is rebuttable. This presumption is based on the principle that postal department, a Government Agency, its officials must have acted in ordinary course of business unless proved otherwise vide Section 114(g) of Evidence Act. This presumption however is rebuttable. If the addressee denies receipt' service of registered letter, the onus lies upon addresser to show that it was served upon him, or received by him, or was offered for service but where the envelop is returned by the Postman with the endorsement of refusal, the onus lies upon the addressee to show that it was not offered to him and the endorsement is incorrect. 9. Here the facts are slightly different. It is not a case where the registered envelope was received undelivered by the Trial Court from the postal department with the endorsement of "not claimed" or "undelivered" or "refused". The impugned orders show that the Trial Court was satisfied with insufficiency of service, hence ordered for publication but thereafter the plaintiff-landlord herself placed before Trial Court three envelops alleged to have been sent by registered post to petitioners-tenant and were returned undelivered with postman's endorsement "not claimed". To suggest that the official lapse here has taken place in the manner they ought to have been, is not correct. It has not happened actually. The registered envelops were produced by landlord and she has to explain as to wherefrom she got it. In the normal official course of business when summons are issued by court by registered post, the same must have been returned to the court itself, after service or undelivered. There could not have been any occasion to reach such document/summons in the hands of plaintiff-landlord. 10. The courts below have miserably failed to enquire as to how envelops were not received in the court with endorsement made by postal agent or the postman but how were filed by plaintiff-respondent herself. The court must have enquired as to how these envelops came in possession of plaintiff-respondent. The summons are issued by court. If the postal department has to return summons the same must have come back to the court itself. There could not have been any occasion to the party concerned getting possession of such envelops containing summons from postal department. This itself was sufficient to take away statutory presumption and would have caused serious doubt on the authenticity of alleged endorsement. If the postal department has to return summons the same must have come back to the court itself. There could not have been any occasion to the party concerned getting possession of such envelops containing summons from postal department. This itself was sufficient to take away statutory presumption and would have caused serious doubt on the authenticity of alleged endorsement. In this particular case, I have no doubt that onus lay upon plaintiff-respondent to demonstrate that envelops which were submitted by her, contained endorsement of postal agent and not made by anybody else and further that the same were actually offered to addressee but not claimed. 11. It is no doubt true that in Anil Kumar Vs. 'Nanak Chandra Verma, AIR 1990 SC 1215 the Apex Court said that if a registered letter is received back with an endorsement made by an official of the post office that it was refused by addressee, presumption of service upon addressee shall be drawn unless the addressee proved that letter was never offered to him by postman but such a presumption would lie when everything has taken place in the normal course. 12. In the present case, the normal procedure applicable in subordinate courts, that the summons are issued by court and when summons are returned undelivered they must come to the court itself, has not been observed. There could not have been any occasion for the plaintiff-respondent to file registered envelopes before the Trial Court to demonstrate that same have been received undelivered with endorsement "not claimed" or "refused" etc. This fact itself would raise a serious doubt over the correctness of such document which has been totally ignored by courts below. They have not endeavoured to find out how the envelops sent by registered post went into the hands of landlord. This aspect had to be clarified by her. In this case, the onus, therefore, lies upon plaintiff-respondent. The decision of Apex Court in Anil Kumar (supra) in its entirety does not cover the controversy of present case in view of peculiar facts. 13. Moreover, in the present case the Trial Court passed order to effect service upon the defendant-tenant by the mode of publication in daily newspaper. In this case, the onus, therefore, lies upon plaintiff-respondent. The decision of Apex Court in Anil Kumar (supra) in its entirety does not cover the controversy of present case in view of peculiar facts. 13. Moreover, in the present case the Trial Court passed order to effect service upon the defendant-tenant by the mode of publication in daily newspaper. Unless that order is recalled, in my view, the Trial Court was not justified to proceed ahead and to decide the case ex parte, relying on the envelops filed before it by plaintiff-respondent herself. 14. Decision to proceed ex parte must be taken only when the court is satisfied that defendant is trying to avoid service and there is sufficient, credible and reliable evidence availablexon record to form such opinion. 15. Both the courts below, I am surprised to see, have failed to consider as to in what manner the registered envelops came to be possessed by plaintiff-respondent and she had to file the same before Trial Court with alleged endorsement of postal authorities. Here it was a deviation from official function and, therefore, it was necessary to prove that alleged endorsement was actually made by postal authorities and not anybody else. The documents had gone out of possession of official authorities. The facts of this case, therefore, would not attract the principle of law as has been followed by courts below, where the entire transaction has been handled by the officials and not by private parties. 16. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 03.04.1999, 10.07.2000 and 13.03.2003 are hereby set aside. The Trial Court is directed to decide suit by giving opportunity of contest to petitioners-tenants provided, the petitioners, i. e., defendants-tenants pay a cost of Rs. 5000/- and also file written statement within a period of one month from today before the Trial Court, failing which this writ petition shall stand dismissed automatically. Petition dismissed. _____________