JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal, J. Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, Advocate for revisionist and Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondents. 2. This revision, under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1887"), has arisen from the judgment and decree dated 22.03.2005 passed by Sri Arun Kumar Gupta, Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Jhansi, decreeing SCC Suit No. 05 of 1998 granting decree of ejectment from disputed premises and recovery of arrears of arent and damages from defendant-revisionist. 3. The dispute relates to the House No. 1606/A, Nai Basti, Sushila Enclave, Gwalior Road, Jhansi, of which plaintiff-respondent, Jagdish Prasad Gupta (since deceased and substituted by his legal heirs), was the owner. 4. As per plaint case house was let out to defendant-revisionist on 10.11.1994 on a monthly rent of Rs. 2700/- for a period of three years. The defendant failed to pay rent despite repeated demand, hence a notice dated 18.11.1997 sent to defendant-revisionist which was returned with postal endorsement "Mila Nahi. Praptkarta Bahar Gaya Hai. Pata Nahi Kab Tak Wapis Aayega." Thereafter another notice dated 17.02.1998 was sent but with collusion of Postman the defendant-revisionist opened the notice, read it and thereafter returned with the same endorsement. Then a third notice was published in daily newspaper "Dainik Bhaskar" dated 24.03.1998 and copy of newspaper was sent at the address of defendant. Hence, tenancy having already terminated the defendant was liable for ejectment, payment of rent and damages for a period of unauthorized occupation at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month. 5. The Trial Court formulated following three issues: ^^1- D;k izfroknh ds ftEes fnukad 15-4-97 ls 24-4-98 rd dk fdjk;k ckdh gS\ 2- D;k fxjtk 'kadj xqIrk ds ek/; ls izfroknh us 31-3-98 rd dk fdjk;k vnk dj fn;k gS vFkok ugha ,oa mldh jlhnsa tkjh gqbZ vFkok ugha\ 3- D;k izfroknh ds fo: ) oknh }kjk izsf"kr vUrxZr /kkjk 106 lEifRr vUrj.k vf/kfu;e dh uksfVl fof/kr% rkehy gqbZ vFkok ugha ,oa izfroknh dh fdjk;snkjh lekIr gqbZ vFkok ugha\** "1. Whether the rent for the period from 15.04.97 to 24.04.98, due against the defendant, is outstanding? 2. Whether or not the defendant has paid out the rent up to 31.03.98 through Vijay Shanker Gupta; and whether its receipts have been issued or not ? 3. Whether the rent for the period from 15.04.97 to 24.04.98, due against the defendant, is outstanding? 2. Whether or not the defendant has paid out the rent up to 31.03.98 through Vijay Shanker Gupta; and whether its receipts have been issued or not ? 3. Whether or not the notice issued by the plaintiff against the defendant u/s 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is duly served; and whether the tenancy of the defendant has got terminated or not?" (English translation by the Court) 6. Having answered aforesaid issues against defendant-revisionist the suit has been dismissed by Trial Court. 7. Before this Court the basic question which goes to root of the matter raised by learned counsel for the revisionist is, "whether any notice of demand and termination of tenancy was served upon defendant-revisionist and the findings recorded by court below in this regard are in accordance with law or not?" 8. Notice dated 17.11.997 is paper No. 11-C. It was sent by registered post addressed to Sri Shiv Narayan Goswami son of Sri Lal Chand Goswami, resident of 1606/A, Nai Basti, Sushila Enclave, Jhansi. Admittedly, notice was given at the correct address of disputed premises at which defendant-revisionist was residing. This notice stood returned by postal department with endorsement that sendee is out of station and it is not known as to when he will come back. As per the finding recorded by Trial Court also the return envelop contained endorsement dated 19.11.1997, 20.11.1997, 21.11.1997, 23.11.1997 and 25.11.1997, "not met". Meaning thereby, the Postman visited sendee's place but did not find sendee thereat and returned and ultimately with this endorsement that sendee is out of station, the notice was returned by postal department. 9. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents, when queried, he could not dispute that aforesaid endorsement cannot be construed as service of notice upon the addressee, i.e., defendant. 10. Then comes the second notice dated 17.02.1998 which was also sent by registered post in which also address mentioned as 1606/A, Nai Basti, Sushila Enclave, Jhansi. Here also the endorsement made by Postman on the envelop dated 18.02.1998, 19.02.1998, 20.02.1998 and 21.02.1998 shows that the addressee did not meet on said residence being out of station and ultimately this notice was returned with postal endorsement. This Court has no manner of doubt that even this notice cannot be said to have been served upon defendant-revisionist. 11. Here also the endorsement made by Postman on the envelop dated 18.02.1998, 19.02.1998, 20.02.1998 and 21.02.1998 shows that the addressee did not meet on said residence being out of station and ultimately this notice was returned with postal endorsement. This Court has no manner of doubt that even this notice cannot be said to have been served upon defendant-revisionist. 11. Now comes the alleged third notice 24.03.1998 which was got published by plaintiff in daily newspaper "Dainik Bhasker", copy whereof was sent by him to the resident of defendant. It is further alleged that the notice for demand of rent and termination of tenancy has validly been served but despite service neither arrears of rent was paid not accommodation in question was vacated after expiry of time stipulated in notice. This Court has not been shown any such provision under which a demand and quit notice can be deemed to be served upon the addressee by not remitting the same through post or other recognized method and instead by publishing in newspaper and thereafter to deem it to have been served upon him. In absence of any such provision, in my view, publication of demand and quit notice in newspaper cannot be treated to be a substituted service applying deeming provision in respect of such notice. 12. The service of notice sent by registered post can be presumed to have been served upon the addressee when it is not returned undelivered or returned with postal endorsement of 'refusal' etc., but where the registered letter is received back with endorsement like "addressee is not available at the address" or "not met" or "out of station" etc., which shows that there was no occasion for postal authority to offer the letter to the addressee and there was no act on the part of addressee having the effect of denying receipt of such letter, such presumption of service in respect of registered letter cannot arise. 13. Section 27 of General Clauses Act, 1897 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1897") reads as under: "27. 13. Section 27 of General Clauses Act, 1897 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1897") reads as under: "27. Meaning of service by post.-Where any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act authorizes or requires any document to be served by post, where the expression "serve" or either of the expressions "give" or "send" or any other expression is used, then, unless a different intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing pre-paying and posting by registered post, a letter containing the document, and unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post." 14. Here the presumption in respect of registered letter applies only if otherwise is not proved. In the present case letters have been received back with endorsement "not met" and that being so there cannot be a presumption that registered letter must be deemed to have been proved. Here is also not a case where letter has been received with endorsement of 'refusal'. 15. In Sukumar Guha Vs. Naresh Chandra Ghosh AIR 1968 Cal. 49 , a Single Judge (Hon'ble Amresh Roj, J.) referring to Section 114, Illustration (f) of Act, 1872, Section 106 of Act, 1882 and Section 27 of Act, 1897 said that presumption under Section 27 of Act, 1897 can arise only when a notice is sent by registered post while there may arise a presumption under Section 114 of Act, 1872 when notice is sent by ordinary post or under certificate of posting. Both the presumptions are rebuttable. When the cover containing notice has been returned to the sender by postal authorities, then that fact is direct proof of the fact that the notice sent by post was not delivered to the party to whom it was addressed. Similarly, presumption under Section 114, illustration (f) of Evidence Act also, in my view, has no application in the case in hand. 16. The court below, therefore, in holding that since letters were sent by registered post, they will must be deemed to have been delivered to the addressee and the mere fact that letters have been received with endorsement that addressee did not meet would make no difference, in my view, is not correct. 16. The court below, therefore, in holding that since letters were sent by registered post, they will must be deemed to have been delivered to the addressee and the mere fact that letters have been received with endorsement that addressee did not meet would make no difference, in my view, is not correct. Since no valid notice was served upon revisionist, it cannot be said that tenancy was validly terminated entitling revisionist to have a decree of eviction against him. 17. The question, therefore, is answered in favour of defendant-revisionist and against plaintiff-respondent. The revision is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 22.03.2005 is hereby set aside. No costs.