JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal, J. 1. Heard learned counsels for parties and perused the record. 2. This Revision under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1887") has arisen from judgment and decree dated 11.09.2009 passed by Sri Arun Kumar Gupta, Additional District Judge/Special Judge (E.C.Act) Etawah decreeing SCC Case No. 1 of 2005 and directing defendant-revisionist to vacate disputed premises which is a shop and also pay arrears of rent, damages and mesne profits to plaintiff-respondent. 3. Sri M.A. Qadeer, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mohd. Hisham Qadeer, Advocate, appearing for revisionist, assailed impugned judgment only on one ground that no notice terminating tenancy was ever served upon revisionist and finding recorded by Court below on Issue-2 by holding that service of notice dated 20.11.2004 is deemed sufficient on account of refusal by revisionist is perverse, illegal and cannot be sustained. 4. It is not disputed by learned counsel for parties that a notice dated 20.11.2004 sent to revisionist, mentioning his correct address by registered post. It is on record as Exhibit-III (Paper No. 74C/1). On Paper No. 74C/1, on the back side there is a red pen endorsement which is said to have been given by Postman mentioning "not claimed post to sender". There is another line below this endorsement and then there is another word mentioned, i.e., "refused". 5. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that Trial Court in the judgment has read same document as 7C/1 (Exhibit-2) though the aforesaid notice is not 7C/1 or Exhibit-2 and this shows that finding recorded by Court below is perverse. 6. There is another line below this endorsement and then there is another word mentioned, i.e., "refused". 5. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that Trial Court in the judgment has read same document as 7C/1 (Exhibit-2) though the aforesaid notice is not 7C/1 or Exhibit-2 and this shows that finding recorded by Court below is perverse. 6. It would be appropriate to reproduce findings recorded by Court below in respect to notice, which read as under: %hnd1%^^oknh us viuh ekSf[kd lk{; esa ;g Hkh dgk gS fd izfroknh dks tfj, jftLVªh 20-11-04 uksfVl Hksth xbZ gS] ftlds }kjk mlls cdk;k fdjk;k dh ekax djrs gq;s fdjk;snkjh dks lekIr fd;k x;k gSA oknh ds dFku dh iqf"V i=koyh ij miyC/k dkxt la[;k&7x@1 izn'kZ&2 ds voyksdu ls gksrh gSA ;g uksfVl fnukad 20-11-04 jftLVMZ ,0Mh0 }kjk izfroknh ds lgh irs ij Hksth xbZ gS] tks ctfj, bUdkjh ykSV dj izkIr gqbZ gSA bl ij iksLVeSu dh fjiksVZ gS fd mDr uksfVl foi{kh@izfroknh }kjk izkIr ugha dh xbZ gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa bl uksfVl dk rkehyk i;kZIr ekuk tk,xkA vkSj ;g Hkh ekuk tk,xk fd uksfVl esa of.kZr rF;ksa dh tkudkjh izfroknh dks gSA bl uksfVl ds ek/;e ls izfroknh dh fdjk;snkjh oknh }kjk lekIr dh xbZ gSA Qyr% uksfVl fof/kd gksus ds dkj.k vkSj oknh dks uksfVl izsf"kr djus dk vf/kdkj gksus ds dkj.k izfroknh dh fdjk;snkjh fnukad&20-11-04 ds ckn ls lekIr ekuh tk,xhA^^%hnd2% "The plaintiff, in his oral evidence, has also stated that a notice has been sent to the defendant through registered post dated 20.11.04 terminating the tenancy and demanding the outstanding rental from him. The statement of the plaintiff stands corroborated on perusal of the papers 7C/1 (Ex.-2) available on record. This notice dated 20.11.04 by registered post (A.D.) has been sent on correct address of the defendant, which has been received back after refusal. It has a report of the postman to the effect that the said notice has not been received by the opposite party/defendant. In such condition, the notice shall be taken to have been served sufficiently; and the defendants shall also be presumed to have been intimated with the facts described in the notice. Through this notice, the tenancy of the defendant has been terminated by the plaintiff. In such condition, the notice shall be taken to have been served sufficiently; and the defendants shall also be presumed to have been intimated with the facts described in the notice. Through this notice, the tenancy of the defendant has been terminated by the plaintiff. The notice being legal and the plaintiff having the right to give the notice, the tenancy of the defendant will be taken to have expired since 20.11.04." (emphasis added) (English Translation by Court) 7. Even if I presume that mention of Exhibit-2 is only a clerical mistake and Court below in fact intended to refer Exhibit-3, i.e., Paper No. 74C/1, I find that there are two different endorsements made by Postman, one, "not claimed", and, another, "refused". The manner in which endorsements have been made shows that word "refused" has been added subsequently but its reason and at what stage it has been mentioned, is not clear. Admittedly, Postman was not examined. Whether both these endorsements were made by Postman, could not be ascertained. Meaning of the word "not claimed" and "refused" are different and both cannot be read to have caused same meaning. In my view, finding in respect to service of notice in absence of examination of Postman treating it a deemed service for refusal is not correct and it requires re-examination of matter on this aspect only. 8. In the result, revision is allowed. Impugned judgment dated 11.09.2009 is set aside. Matter is remanded to Court below only to examine question of validity of notice, i.e., Issue-2. It will be open to plaintiff-respondent to adduce additional evidence by producing Postman concerned and examine him before Court below and if necessary, defendant-revisionist may also be allowed opportunity to adduce evidence in rebuttal. Court below, thereafter, shall consider and decide Issue-2 afresh. Court below shall complete aforesaid exercise within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 9. Record of Court below shall be remitted back forthwith.