JUDGMENT : SANGEET LODHA, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 19.8.2011 of Appellate Rent Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar, whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent-landlord questioning the legality of the order dated 15.10.2008 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar in Rent Case No. 110 of 2005, dismissing the petition preferred seeking eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question, stands allowed and accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be evicted from the premises in question. 2. The respondent/landlord filed a petition for eviction and recovery of rent against the petitioner/tenant before the Rent Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar. The eviction was sought on the ground of default in payment of rent in terms of the provisions of Section 9(a) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short the Act). The petition was contested by the petitioner/tenant by filing a reply thereto. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Tribunal framed the issues and parties led their evidence. 3. After due consideration of the evidence on record, the Rent Tribunal arrived at the finding that in absence of acknowledgment receipt showing that notice sent by the respondent/landlord was served upon the petitioner/tenant, he cannot be said to have defaulted in payment of rent for a period of four months and therefore, the landlord is not entitled for order of eviction in terms of provisions of Section 9(a) of the Act. Accordingly, the petition preferred by the respondent/landlord was dismissed by the Rent Tribunal vide order dated 15.12.2008. 4. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent/landlord preferred an appeal before Appellate Rent Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar. After due consideration of the rival submissions, the Appellate Rent Tribunal arrived at the finding that the notice for a period of 30 days was sent by the respondent/landlord to the petitioner/tenant by way of registered post on 7.7.2005 disclosing his bank account number, in respect whereof a presumption of service has to be drawn keeping in view, the provisions of Section 114 of Evidence Act. The Appellate Rent Tribunal found that notice was sent on the correct address and therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to take the stand that he has not received the notice. The Appellate Rent Tribunal found that notice was sent on the correct address and therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to take the stand that he has not received the notice. The Appellate Rent Tribunal found that the petitioner tenant having failed to deposit the rent despite service of notice within a period of 30 days and thus, being in default of payment of rent for a period exceeding four months, is liable to be evicted from the premises in question. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the respondent/landlord was allowed. Hence, this petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Appellate Rent Tribunal has seriously erred in drawing presumption of service of notice upon the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that as per proviso to Section 9(a) of the Act, the respondent/landlord was required to serve the notice disclosing his bank account number, by registered post acknowledgment due and therefore, in absence of acknowledgment receipt showing that the notice was served upon the petitioner, he cannot be evicted from the premises in question on the ground of default in payment of rent in terms of Section 9(a) of the Act. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner having denied the receipt of the notice, burden was upon the respondent to prove that notice was duly served upon the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that nothing prevented the respondent to make an application before the Rent Tribunal for summoning the postman for examination as witness. Learned counsel would submit that the respondent having failed to produce any cogent evidence to prove the factum of service of notice, the order passed by the Rent Tribunal was just and proper. Learned counsel submitted that the Appellate Rent Tribunal has ignored the evidence on record showing that the rent was paid by the petitioner to the respondent/landlord and there was no arrear of rent. Learned counsel would submit that the Rent Tribunal has decided the matter in cursory manner without consideration of the evidence on record, objectively and therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondent while drawing the attention of this court to the notice dated 7.7.2005 (Ex.3) and postal receipt (Ex.4), submitted that it cannot be disputed that the notice disclosing the bank account number was sent by the respondent to the petitioner by registered post acknowledgment due. 6. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondent while drawing the attention of this court to the notice dated 7.7.2005 (Ex.3) and postal receipt (Ex.4), submitted that it cannot be disputed that the notice disclosing the bank account number was sent by the respondent to the petitioner by registered post acknowledgment due. Learned counsel would submit that by virtue of provisions of Section 114 of Evidence Act and Section 27 of General Clauses Act, 1897, it has to be presumed that the notice sent by registered post containing the petitioner's correct address has been duly served upon him or person authorised by him. Learned counsel would submit that no contrary evidence whatsoever was brought on record by the petitioner showing that the notice sent to him by the respondent by registered post acknowledgment due has not been served upon him and thus, the presumption has to be drawn that the notice in question did reach to the addressee or any authorised person on his behalf. Learned counsel would submit that admittedly, the petitioner did not pay the arrear of the rent despite the service of the notice and therefore, the order impugned passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, directing eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question on the ground of default in payment of rent, cannot be faulted with. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 8. The controversy raised rolls around the requirement of service of notice by the landlord upon the tenant in terms of first and second proviso to Section 9(a) of the Act, which may be beneficially quoted: “9. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 8. The controversy raised rolls around the requirement of service of notice by the landlord upon the tenant in terms of first and second proviso to Section 9(a) of the Act, which may be beneficially quoted: “9. Eviction of tenants-Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law or contract but subject to other provisions of this Act, Rent Tribunal shall not order eviction of tenant unless it is satisfied that:- (a) The tenant has neither paid nor tendered the amount of rent due from him for four months: Provided that the ground under this clause shall not be available to the landlord if he has not disclosed to the tenant his bank account number and name of the bank in the same municipal area, in the rent agreement or by a notice sent to him by registered post, acknowledgment due: Provided further that no petition on the ground under this clause shall be filed unless the landlord has given a notice to the tenant by registered post, acknowledgment due, demanding arrears of rent and the tenant has not made payment of arrears of rent within a period of thirty days from the date of service of notice.” 9. It is to be noticed that by virtue of first proviso to Section 9(a), the ground of eviction in terms of Section 9(a) is not available to the landlord if he has not disclosed to the tenant his bank account number and name of the bank in the same municipal area, in the rent agreement or by notice sent to him by registered post acknowledgment due. Further, by virtue of the second proviso to Section 9(a), the landlord is not entitled to file the petition on the ground of default in payment of rent if he has not given a notice to the tenant by registered post acknowledgment due demanding arrears of the rent and the tenant has not made payment thereof within a period of 30 days from the receipt of the notice. 10. A perusal of notice dated 7.7.2000 (Ex.3) reveals that the landlord had claimed the arrears of rent for the period August, 2004 onwards, obviously, for the period exceeding four months. 10. A perusal of notice dated 7.7.2000 (Ex.3) reveals that the landlord had claimed the arrears of rent for the period August, 2004 onwards, obviously, for the period exceeding four months. In the notice alleged to have been sent by registered post acknowledgment due, the landlord has also disclosed his bank account number and name of the bank. 11. Indisputably, if the notice (Ex.3) alleged to have been sent by the respondent to the petitioner is duly served upon the petitioner or presumed to be served upon the petitioner under the law, the respondent-landlord was entitled to seek order of eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent invoking the provisions of Section 9(a) of the Act. 12. A perusal of the postal receipt (Ex.4) makes it abundantly clear that respondent had sent a registered letter acknowledgment due to the petitioner on 8.7.2005. The correctness of the address is not disputed by the petitioner before this court. Obviously, so as to seek order of eviction invoking the provisions of Section 9(a) of the Act, if the tenant is in default of payment of rent due to him for four months, all that landlord was expected to do is to comply with the provisions of first and second proviso thereto, by dispatching a notice demanding the arrear of rent and disclosing the bank account number, if not already disclosed under the agreement. The respondent having sent the notice to the petitioner satisfying the requirement of first and second proviso to Section 9(a) of the Act, by delivering the letter at the post office containing correct address of the tenant, had no control over it. 13. Section 114 of Evidence Act, empowers the court to draw a presumption regarding existence of a fact when it appears that the common course of business renders it probable that a thing would have happened unless there are circumstances in a particular case to show that the common course of business was interrupted. Thus, the Court is empowered to draw a presumption that in common course of natural events, the letter sent by registered post has been delivered at the address of the addressee. Thus, the Court is empowered to draw a presumption that in common course of natural events, the letter sent by registered post has been delivered at the address of the addressee. Moreover, by virtue of provisions of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and Section 30 of Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955, which provide for specific presumption regarding the service by post, unless contrary is proved, the service is presumed to be effected by properly addressing pre-paying and posting by registered post a letter containing the document, at the time at which the letter would be delivered in ordinary course of post. Of course, the presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act as well as under Section 114 of the Evidence Act are rebuttable but in absence of proof to the contrary, the presumption for service or effective service on addressee would arise. Harcharan Singh vs. Shiv Rani, AIR 1981 SC 1284 . 14. Adverting to the facts of the present case, it is not in dispute that the notice alleged to have been sent by the respondent to the petitioner was properly addressed and the postal charges were duly paid and therefore unless and until, contrary is proved by the addressee, the petitioner herein, service of notice is presumed to have been effected at the time at which the letter would have been delivered in ordinary course of business. In this view of the matter, the contention raised by the petitioner that the petitioner having denied the service of notice, the respondent was under an obligation to prove the service of the notice by producing cogent evidence including by summoning the postman for examination before the court as witness, is absolutely devoid of any merit. 15. In view of the discussion above, the finding arrived at by the Appellate Rent Tribunal drawing presumption regarding service of the notice upon the petitioner cannot be faulted with. 16. After due consideration of evidence on record, the Appellate Rent Tribunal has arrived at a finding that despite service of notice, the petitioner failed to deposit the arrears of rent for the period exceeding four months, which remains a finding of fact and cannot be said to be capricious or perverse so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 17. 17. No other point has been pressed by the petitioner. 18. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.