JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 28-9-2005 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal Alwar (hereinafter 'the Tribunal) as upheld by the order dated 12-7-2006 passed by the Rent Control Appellate Tribunal, Alwar (hereinafter the Appellate Tribunal). By the aforesaid two orders eviction has been directed against the tenant under provisions of Section 9(a) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter 'the 2001 Act) for having defaulted in payment of due rent in spite of registered notice sent by the respondent landlord (hereinafter 'the landlord') at the correct address of the tenant. 2. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is not in dispute. On 4-8-2004 the landlord moved an application under the provisions of 2001 Act before the learned Tribunal in respect of the tenanted shop pleading therein that the shop was under tenancy first of the father of the tenant and thereafter the tenant himself since 28-11-1967. It was submitted that the tenant committed default for the period 1-8-2003 to 31-12-2003 and failed to deposit the rent due at the rate of Rs. 466/- per month for the aforesaid period in spite of registered notice dated 28-1-2004. The landlords case was that the tenant had earlier committed default in payment of rent due for the period of 1-4-2003 to 31-7-2003. Thereafter after negotiations rent had been deposited in the landlords account at the rate of Rs. 466/- per month for the period 1-4-2003 to 31-7-2003. 3. It was averred that however with effect from 1-8-2003 the tenant again defaulted in paying rent due, nor tendered it or deposited it in the bank account of the landlord. Rent being due for the period 1-8-2003 to 31-12-2003, a registered notice through counsel was sent by the landlord on 28-1-2004 requiring deposit of rent due for the period 1-8-2003 to 31-12-2003 in the designated bank account of the landlord. It was averred that the tenant in spite of having knowledge of his own default and in spite of the registered notice addressed to him to clear the arrears of rent did not accept the notice or discharge the arrears of rent due. A ground for the tenants eviction was thus made out under Section 9(a) of the Act of 2001. A ground for the tenants eviction was thus made out under Section 9(a) of the Act of 2001. The landlord also stated that the tenant however did make some deposits in the bar account of the landlord on 31-1- 2004, 15-3-2004 and 9-6-2004 aggregating to Rs. 2,100/-, which did not suffice with the requirement of the mandate of Section 9(a) of the 2001 Act where under whole of the arrears of four months of rent due were to be deposited within thirty days of the registered notice deemed to have been served on the refusal to accept it by the tenant on 3-2-2004. It was averred that consequently the tenant committed default in law in payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 466/- per month for the period 1-8-2003 to 31-12-2003 in spite of a registered notice. In these circumstances it was prayed that an order of eviction be passed against the tenant and the landlord put in vacant possession of the tenanted premises. Arrears of outstanding amount of Rs. 2,166/- (after deducting amount paid meanwhile) with interest as on 1-1-2004 and further rent at the rate of Rs. 466/- per month with due enhancement at the rate of 5% per year was also Claimed in support of the application for eviction, the landlord filed affidavits in evidence and copy of rent deed, deposit slip, photo copy of the bank pass book, copy of notice, receipt of post office evidencing dispatch of notice, AD receipt were exhibited as Ex.1 to Ex. 13 Document Ex.9 was return of registered inland letter/notice with the endorsement of the post-man indicating the refusal of the tenant to receive the registered notice sent by the landlord through his counsel. 4. The tenant contested the application for eviction and denied the averments of the landlord. It was stated that the rent c. the tenanted premises was Rs. 300/- per month at all times and liability on that count fully discharged upto 31-12-2003. It was stated that for the period 1-4-2003 to 31-7-2003 owing to pressure of the landlord excess amount of Rs. 466/- per month was deposited in the bank account of the landlord as rent, while the actual greed rent continued to remain as Rs. 300/- per month. Consent to enhancement of rent to Rs. 466/- per month as of 1-4-2003 was denied. It was stated that Rs. 600/- has been paid on 31-1-2004. 466/- per month was deposited in the bank account of the landlord as rent, while the actual greed rent continued to remain as Rs. 300/- per month. Consent to enhancement of rent to Rs. 466/- per month as of 1-4-2003 was denied. It was stated that Rs. 600/- has been paid on 31-1-2004. Rs. 600/- on 15-3-2004 and Rs. 900/- on 9-6-2004 fully discharging the rent due to the landlord for the period of alleged default in payment of rent i.e. 1-8-2003 to 31-12-2003 and there was no occasion for an order of eviction on that count or at all. It was also denied that the notice dated 28-1 -2004 by registered post was refused to be accepted by the tenant or that the post- man had ever attempted to deliver the said notice to the tenant. 5. In the context of the reply to the eviction application, it was prayed that the eviction application was without force and be dismissed with cost of Rs. 2,000/. 6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed following issues:- 1- vk;k izR;FkhZ }kjk 1-4-2003 ls vthZnkj ds cSad [kkrs esa tek djk;s x;s fdjk;k 466@& :0 izfrekg mldh lgefr ls ugha FkkA 2- vk;k izR;FkhZ us 1-8-2003 ls 31-12-2003 rd ifjlj dk fdjk;k 466@& :0 izfrekg dh nj ls uksfVl ds ckotwn tek ugha djk;k\ 3- vk;k vtkZnkj cdk;k fdjk;k 1-8- 2003 ls 30 -6-2003 rd 2]126@& :0 e; C;kt izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 4- vk;k vthZnkj }kjk vthZ nk;j djus ls iwoZ 30 fnol dh dkykof/k dk uksfVl fn;k x;k Fkk\ 5- vk;k izR;FkhZ mlds }kjk 1-8-2003 ls 31-7-2003 rd dh vof/k dh tek djkbZ xbZ fdjk;k jkf'k dks lek;ksftr dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 6- vk;k vthZnkj vizR;FkhZ }kjk fdjk;s esa pwd ds vk/kkj ij ifjlj [kkyh djokdj dCts dh iqu% izkfIr dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 7- vuqrks"k\ 7. Of the relevance to the determination of this petition are issues No. 1 and 2, as they pertain to the issue of default by the tenant on which the order of eviction of the tenant has been passed. 8. On consideration of the evidence of the parties, the learned Tribunal held that the shop in issue with the tenant was on rent at the rate of Rs. 466/-per month. 8. On consideration of the evidence of the parties, the learned Tribunal held that the shop in issue with the tenant was on rent at the rate of Rs. 466/-per month. For this Tribunal primarily relied on the fact that the tenant himself for the period 1-4-2003 to 31-7-2003 had deposited the rent on 2-8-2003 at the rate of Rs. 466/- per month in the bank account designated by the landlord. On the issue of default under Section 9(a) of the 2001 Act, the Tribunal found that the landlord had sent a registered notice with acknowledgment due to the correct address of the tenant which notice was refused to be accepted by the tenant as evident from the endorsement of the postman on the letter as returned to the landlord as undelivered by the post office. The Tribunal held the endorsement of refusal by the addressee as recorded by the postman tantamounted to service of notice on 3-2-2004 as per the provisions of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (hereinafter the Act of 1897'). Thereafter the tenant failed to deposit the rent for the period 1-8-2003 to 31-12-2003 at the rate of Rs. 466/- per month in the bank account of the landlord or to otherwise discharge the liability on account of due rent. Consequently, the learned Tribunal vide order dated 28-9-2005 held that in terms of Section 9(a) of the 2001 Act, the tenant was liable to be evicted on the ground of default ion payment of arrears of rent due. Appeal against the order dated 28-9-2005 to the Appellate Rent Tribunal Alwar was dismissed on 12-7-2006. Hence this petition. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record of the writ petition including the impugned orders dated 28-9-2005 and 12-7-2006 passed by the Tribunals below. 10. Learned Senior counsel Mr. R.K. Mathur assisted by Mr. Aditya Mathur on behalf of the tenant has submitted that the orders of the Tribunals below are perverse and even otherwise misdirected in law. It was submitted that the agreed rent between the tenant and the landlord was Rs. 300/- and merely because the tenant had deposited under coercion rent at the rate of Rs. 466/- per month for the period 1-4-2003 to 31-7-2003 in the bank account of the landlord, it could not be held that the agreed rent was Rs. 466/- per month. 300/- and merely because the tenant had deposited under coercion rent at the rate of Rs. 466/- per month for the period 1-4-2003 to 31-7-2003 in the bank account of the landlord, it could not be held that the agreed rent was Rs. 466/- per month. It was submitted that the 2001 Act provides for a mechanism for enhancement of the rent, more particularly under Section 6 thereof and for enhancement of rent from Rs. 300/- per month as obtaining on 31-3-2003 to Rs. 466/- per month thereafter as Claimed, the landlord ought to have approached the Tribunal by way of an appropriate application for revision of rent. This was not done and instead the tenant was coerced by the landlord into depositing the enhanced amount rent at the rate of Rs. 466/- per month for the period 1-4-2003 to 31-7-2003. It was submitted that the coercion by the landlord could not be construed as a mutual enhancement of the rent and the learned Tribunals have erred in so construing it. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that aside of above, the notice under second proviso to Section 9 (a) of the 2001 Act was not lawfully served on the tenant. It was submitted that endorsement of the refusal attributed to the tenant by the post-man is extremely suspicious and ought not to have been believed and relied upon by the Tribunals below. It was submitted that it was on record that the registered notice was sent on 28-1-2004 and within two days the first endorsement on the registered inland letter was that the tenant was not found at his recorded address. Thereafter on 31-1-2004 the second endorsement on the registered inland letter was made that the addressee was informed of the registered letter in his name. And on 3-2-2004 the final endorsement of refusal by the tenant was made by the post-man. Counsel submitted that as ordinarily is postal practice, the post office (postman) ought to have waited for the addressee to collect the letter for ten days. This was not done and endorsement of refusal post haste made by the postman. And on 3-2-2004 the final endorsement of refusal by the tenant was made by the post-man. Counsel submitted that as ordinarily is postal practice, the post office (postman) ought to have waited for the addressee to collect the letter for ten days. This was not done and endorsement of refusal post haste made by the postman. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that in these circumstances the alleged refusal of the tenant to receive the registered letter is extremely suspicious as the postman was not got examined as a witness before the Tribunal in support of the landlord; case of refusal to accept notice was wrongly based solely on the postmans alleged endorsement on that count. It has been submitted that the Honble Supreme Court in the case of A. Rama Rao v. Raghu Nath Patnaik, 2007(2) WLC (SC) Civil 177 has held that where the addressee on oath states that he did not receive the registered notice sent by post, the same would prevail over the postal endorsement that the registered letter was refused unless the post-man making such an endorsement was examined in court. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that in the instant case both in reply to the eviction application, as also in the evidence on oath before the Tribunal, the tenant had categorically stated that the notice dated 28-1-2004 purportedly sent by the landlord by registered post was never received by him or ever sought to deliver on him and that he had never refused to receive it. it has been submitted that the post-man who made the endorsement with regard to refusal by the tenant having thereafter was not got examined by the landlord before the Tribunal. It is submitted that consequently in terms of judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of, A. Rama Rao (supra) service of registered notice on the tenant in terms of second proviso to Section 9(a) of the 2001 Act should not have been held to have been made. Absent service of notice, the whole edifice of the ground for eviction of the tenant for reason of default in payment of rent for the period in question falls. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Tribunals below in holding to the contrary in the impugned judgments have thus clearly misdirected themselves in law and their judgments are also liable to be set aside on the ground of perversity. 11. Mr. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Tribunals below in holding to the contrary in the impugned judgments have thus clearly misdirected themselves in law and their judgments are also liable to be set aside on the ground of perversity. 11. Mr. Manish Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the landlord would submit that the issue of monthly rent at Rs. 466/- sought to be agitated by the tenant is a non-sequitur. He submitted that the tenant himself having paid the rent at the rate of Rs. 466/- per month for the period 1 -4-2003 to 31-7-2003, it does not lie in his mouth to agitate to the contrary. He submitted that the enhancement of rent from Rs. 300/- to Rs. 466/- per month was under an oral agreement duly acted upon, and law does not contemplate any unilateral reversion to the earlier rent by the tenant. Learned counsel submitted that the tenant in the facts of the case having deposited rent @ Rs. 466/- per month for earlier four months would also be estopped by his conduct from contending that the monthly rent was not Rs. 466/- but Rs. 300/-. Counsel further submitted that Section 27 of the Act of 1897 clearly provides that where any document is to be served by post, then unless, a different intention appears, service shall be deemed to be effected in the ordinary course of post by properly addressing, and duly stamping and posting by registered post, a letter containing the document, unless the contrary is proved. Learned Counsel submitted that Section 27 of the General Clauses Act can be construed in two parts; (i) that where a letter is sought to be served by registered post after having been properly addressed duly stamped and posted it is deemed to be served in the ordinary course, (ii) But the deemed service would be dislocated if the addressee proves to. the contrary. Counsel submitted that 'proof to the contrary cannot be a mere denial and has to be something more by way of positive evidence. the contrary. Counsel submitted that 'proof to the contrary cannot be a mere denial and has to be something more by way of positive evidence. It has been submitted that the Honble Supreme Court in the case of C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed, 2007(6) SCC 555 , albeit in the context of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 but with reference to Section 27 of the Act of 1897 has held that where service of notice by registered post is sought to be effected on an addressee/sendee, unless such sendee proves that it was not really served and that he was not responsible for non service, service would be deemed to have been effected, both in cases of return of the letter as undelivered and return of the letter on the postmans endorsement of refusal by the addressee. Counsel for the landlord submitted that the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of C.C. Alavi Haji has been rendered by a three judge bench of the Honble Supreme Court as against the judgment in case of A. Ramarao rendered by a two judge bench of the Honble Supreme Court and being enunciation of law by a larger bench would bind this court. It was submitted that in the case at hand the factum of notice by registered post to the correct address of the tenant is not in dispute. The said inland letter was indeed sought to be delivered, counsel submits, on three occasions; firstly on 31-1-2004 when the addressee was not found at the address; secondly on 31-1-2004 when the addressee was informed about the registered post in his name to be delivered; and finally on 3-2-2004 when an attempt was made by the post-man to serve the registered notice on the tenant, but he refused to accept the same. Thereupon an endorsement on that count was correctly made by the postman. Learned counsel has submitted that where the presumption in law is mandated to operate, the burden to rebut the presumption is on the person opposing, it as indicated in the governing statute. Section 27 of the Act of 1897 says "unless the contrary is proved". Learned Counsel has submitted that in this view of the matter it was not for the landlord to bring the post-man in evidence as the presumption operated in his favour. Section 27 of the Act of 1897 says "unless the contrary is proved". Learned Counsel has submitted that in this view of the matter it was not for the landlord to bring the post-man in evidence as the presumption operated in his favour. Contrarily the burden was on the tenant to disapprove service of notice on basis of refusal by positive evidence such as of not being in town on the day of alleged refusal (only illustrative). He has submitted that the tenant having failed to discharge his burden in law to prove to the contrary-service of the registered notice to his correct address on his refusal to accept as per postmans endorsement is to be now presumed conclusively. The registered notice for payment of arrears of rent due and non deposit within the statutory period supported the foundation for the ground of default for eviction. Counsel has submitted that in such state of facts and law nothing erroneous or perverse can be found in the impugned orders of the learned Tribunals below. The landlord was thus entitled to an order of eviction for reason of the tenant being a defaulter under section 9(a) of the Act of 2001. It is thus prayed that the tenants petition thus be dismissed. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned orders dated 28-9-2005 and 12- 7-2006 passed by the Tribunals below, I am of the considered view that from the record of the case it is established and it is admitted that for the period 1-4- 2003 to 31-7-2003 the tenant deposited monthly rent in the bank account of the landlord at the rate of Rs. 466. This is to my mind itself constitutes an oral agreement and thereafter the tenant would be estopped by his conduct from contesting that rent of the tenanted premises was not Rs. 466/- per month but Rs. 300/- per month, the decision by the Tribunals below on the issue of monthly rent of the tenanted premises being Rs. 466/- has thus been correctly arrived at and brooks no interference. 466/- per month but Rs. 300/- per month, the decision by the Tribunals below on the issue of monthly rent of the tenanted premises being Rs. 466/- has thus been correctly arrived at and brooks no interference. As far as the presumption of service of registered notice of 28-1-2004 demanding of the tenant arrears of rent for over four months i.e. 1-8-2003 to 31-12-2003 under Section 27 of the Act of 1897 is concerned, I find substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the landlord that the burden of non-receipt of the registered notice duly stamped and admittedly sent to the correct address of the addressee tenant was on the tenant which he failed to discharge. The governing words of importance in Section 27 of the General Clauses Act are "unless the contrary is proved". This is to my mind would inevitably be a burden in law on the addressee that the registered notice had not been received by him. Mere denial cannot in law constitute proof to the contrary. 'Proof or its variate 'proof requires something more positive than mere denial. No positive evidence to rebut the presumption of service of a registered letter was brought on record by the tenant. Any contrary construction of Section 27 of the Act of 1897 would render presumption thereunder redundant and do violence to the pLaln language of the Section. Legislative intent would be defeated. Aside of above, the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of C.C. Alavi Haji (supra) has been rendered by a three judge bench as against the judgment in the case of A. Rama Rao (supra) rendered by two judge bench of the Honble Supreme Court. In the case of C.C. Alavi Haji (supra) the Honble Supreme Court has clearly held that it is for the addressee to prove that he was not really served a letter sent by registered post and that he was not responsible for non-service of the same. This the tenant, in the instant case, has not done. I therefore do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned orders dated 28-9-2005 and 12-7-2006 passed by the Tribunals below. The petition is deserving of dismissal. Dismissed. Writ Petition Dismissed. *******