JUDGMENT [Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. (Oral)] By means of this petition the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 25-07-20 12, passed by Second Additional District Judge, Haridwar, in SCC Revision No. 16 of 2010 Vishwakarma Pracheen Samti Vs. Girver @ Ghanshyam, whereby the revision was allowed and dismissed the SCC Suit of the plaintiff/respondent. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case giving rise to this writ petition, are that the petitioner is tenant of a residential accommodation at Satighat Vishwakarma Mandir Kankhal Haridwar at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month. The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit against the petitioner/defendant for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent before the Judge SCC/Civil Judge (S.D.), Haridwar which was numbered as SCC Suit No. 16 of 2002. The suit has been filed with the assertion that the defendant/petitioner did not pay the rent and water tax and the house tax. The plaintiff sent registered notice U/S 106 of Transfer of Property Act, dated 28-1-2002 through its Advocate terminating the tenancy of the defendant. Reply of notice was sent by the defendant. As in the notice dated 28-2-2002, description of property was not mentioned, therefore subsequent registered notice dated 7-3-2002 was also sent to the defendant terminating his tenancy, but the defendant deliberately refused the acceptance of the notice and the same was returned back. 3. The suit was contested by the petitioner-tenant and assertion made in the plaint have been denied. The service of subsequent notice dated 7-3-2002 was denied. It was further alleged in the W.S. that the plaintiff-institution is not a religious institution and its object is not religious and provision of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 applies to the disputed property. The defendant/tenant further alleged that the rent of disputed property is not Rs. 200/- per month and it is Rs. 100/- per month. It was also alleged that there is no default on the part of tenant in payment of rent and the rent upto the month of January 2002, has been paid. 4. On the basis of pleadings of parties learned Judge SCC has framed as many as seven issues in the suit. Issue No.5 was framed to the effect whether as per pleading in W.S. the notices dated 28-1-2002 and 7.3.2002 sent to defendant are illegal and invalid. 5. 4. On the basis of pleadings of parties learned Judge SCC has framed as many as seven issues in the suit. Issue No.5 was framed to the effect whether as per pleading in W.S. the notices dated 28-1-2002 and 7.3.2002 sent to defendant are illegal and invalid. 5. Both the parties adduced evidence before the Judge SCC in support of their cases and the learned Judge SCC after considering the evidence of parties, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, vide judgment and decree dated 15-5-2010. 6. Feeling aggrieved the plaintiff/landlord preferred SCC Revision No. 16 of 2010, and the IInd Addl. District Judge, Haridwar vide impugned judgment and decree dated 25-7-20 12 partly allowed the revision and decreed the suit for eviction and also directed that the plaintiff/respondent shall be entitled to get mesne profit and damages for occupation of property in dispute, from the defendant/petitioner @ Rs. 10/- per day from 21.4.2002 till the date of getting possession of disputed property. It was also directed that the amount deposited by defendant after filing the suit in the form of rent, shall be deducted from the amount of mesne profit and damages for occupation of the disputed property. 7. The SCC revision was allowed. The revisional court has allowed the revision on the ground that although the plaintiff has failed to prove that there was arrears of rent against the defendant but it has been proved that the plaintiff has been successful to prove that the tenancy of the defendant has been terminated by giving notice U/S 106 of Transfer of Property Act. The plaintiff had sent registered notice dated 28-1-2002, but in the said notice by mistake description of property was not mentioned and due to this reason subsequent registered notice dated 7.3.2002 was sent to the defendant on the correct address and waived the earlier notice dated 28-1-2002, but the defendant deliberately avoided the service. The revisional court has also referred the case of M/s Madan and Co. versus Wazir Jaivir Chand, reported in AIR 1989 Supreme Court 630. Provision of Section 27 of General Clauses Act 1997 was also considered. The revisional court also observed that the earlier notice was served on the same address therefore it cannot be said that the petitioner/defendant was not residing normally on that address. 8. versus Wazir Jaivir Chand, reported in AIR 1989 Supreme Court 630. Provision of Section 27 of General Clauses Act 1997 was also considered. The revisional court also observed that the earlier notice was served on the same address therefore it cannot be said that the petitioner/defendant was not residing normally on that address. 8. Both the courts below gave finding on the issue applicability of provision of Act No. 13 of 1972 and it was held that since the plaintiff/respondent is a charitable institution hence provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 do not apply to the property in dispute. It was also held that the rent of disputed property is Rs. 100/- per month and not Rs. 200/- per month. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the notice dated 7-3-2002 was not served upon the petitioner/defendant and there is not material on record to show that the registered envelope was tendered to the petitioner and he deliberately avoided service of the envelope and the learned revisional court has committed a manifest error of law in drawing presumption that the service of notice was sufficient upon the petitioner-tenant. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of R.K. Vashist Vs. Union of India and others, reported in 1993 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 431. 11. I have gone through the above cited case. The Hon’ble Apex Court has observed in para-4 of the judgment that ‘there is no material on record to show that the registered cover was tendered to the appellant before August 14, or that he deliberately avoided service of the letter. Admittedly, the postal cover could not be served on the appellant and he has stated on oath that the registered cover was never tendered to him. In these circumstances, no presumption could ever arise.’ 12. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has contended that the petitioner/defendant deliberately avoided the service of subsequent registered notice dated 7-3-2002 and the learned revisional court was justified in presuming the service of the notice upon him. The presumption of service U/S 27 of General Clauses Act, and Section 114 of Evidence Act, has rightly been drawn by the revisional court. The presumption of service U/S 27 of General Clauses Act, and Section 114 of Evidence Act, has rightly been drawn by the revisional court. He has further contended that the postman had returned the envelope with the endorsement ‘not met’ and in such situation the notice would be deemed to have been served. In support of his contention he has relied upon the judgments of The State of M.P. vs. Hiralal and others, delivered by Apex Court on 15-1 -1996, in Civil Appeal No. 2414 of 1996, and the judgment of Rajendra Kumar vs. Sanatan dharma Intermediate College Sadar Meerut Cantt. Through its Manager, reported in [2008 (70) ALR 61]. 13. In the case of The State of M.P. vs. Hiralal and others, it was observed by the Apex Court that in view of the office report, it would be clear that the respondents obviously managed to have the notice returned with postal remarks ‘not available in the house’, ‘house locked’ and shop closed’ respectively and in that view, it must be deemed that the notices have been served on the respondents. In the another case of Rajendra Kumar vs. Sanatan dharma Intermediate College Sadar Meerut Cantt. Through its Manager, reported in [2008 (70) AKR 61], the Allahabad High Court relying on the Supreme Court judgment of M/s Madan and Co. v. Wazir Jaivir Chand, has held that if registered notice returned with the endorsement ‘not met’ in such situation notice is deemed to have been served. 14. In the case at hand, the learned revisional court has recorded a categorical finding that on the back of envelope endorsement is made ‘not met’. The Postman visited the house on 14.3.2002, 15.3.2002, 16.3.2002, 18.3.2002, 19-3-2002 and 20-3-2002 and has also made endorsement on 21.3.2002 to this effect that that the recipient does not meet and after intimation also he did not come to take the envelope. The revisional court came to the conclusion that the Postman visited again and again to the address of the defendant but he avoided to take delivery of the envelope. The defendant also did not adduce concrete evidence on the basis of which it can be said that the Postman had not visited on the given address and the defendant was not residing on the given address. The defendant also did not adduce concrete evidence on the basis of which it can be said that the Postman had not visited on the given address and the defendant was not residing on the given address. The defendant was also given intimation by the Postman but despite this he did not come to receive the envelope. Therefore, the presumption of service drawn by the revisional court U/S 27 of General Clauses Act and section 114 of Evidence Act, is perfectly justified. 15. The facts of the case R.K. Vashist Vs. Union of India and others, reported in 1993 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 431 (supra) cited on behalf of petitioner do not apply to the facts of the case at hand. In the cited case there was no material on record to draw presumption that the appellant had deliberately avoided service of the letter. But in the case at hand the earlier notice dated 28-1-2002 was served upon the defendant on the same address, but the delivery of subsequent notice was deliberately avoided. The Postman had visited at the given address again and again and intimation was also given at the address of the defendant by the Postman to take delivery, but the defendant deliberately avoided service. 16. So far as the appraisal of evidence by the courts is concerned, it has been observed that no arrears of rent was against the defendant-tenant and the rent of the premises is Rs. 100/- and not Rs.200/- and the plaintiff institution is a religious institution and provision of Act No. 13 of 1972 do not apply to it. 17. In the case of Ranjeet Singh Vs. Ravi Prakash [(2004) 3 S.C.C. page 682] the Apex Court has observed inter alia in paragraph 4 of the judgment that “an error which needs to be established by lengthy and complicated arguments or by indulging in a long-drawn process of reasoning, cannot possibly be an error available for correction by writ of certiorari. If it is reasonably possible to form two opinions on the same material, the finding arrived at one way or the other, cannot be called a patent error. If it is reasonably possible to form two opinions on the same material, the finding arrived at one way or the other, cannot be called a patent error. As to exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution also, it has been held in Surya Dev Rai that the jurisdiction was not available to be exercised for indulging in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correcting the errors in drawing inference like a court of appeal.” 18. I do not find any manifest error of law in drawing presumption of service of notice dated 7-3-2002 upon the defendant-petitioner by the revisional court. The finding recorded by the revisional court is a finding of fact and the same cannot be re-appraised in writ jurisdiction like appeal. 19. The writ petition is dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the revisional court is affirmed. 20. However, one year’s time is allowed to the petitioner/tenant to vacate the premises in question, provided he pays the entire decretal amount within a period of eight weeks from today and continues to pay the damages till one year and he gives an undertaking to this effect before the Judge S.C.C. concerned, within a period of eight weeks from today that he will vacate the premises in question and will handover the peaceful possession to the plaintiff/respondent after one year.