Kerala High Court
[email protected] vs P.Ramakrishnan on 9 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU
Thursday, the 9th day of September 2021 / 18th Bhadra, 1943
IA.NO.1/2020 IN RCREV. NO. 34 OF 2020
RCP No.10/2016 of the RENT CONTROL COURT/PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ALAPPUZHA
RCA No.3/2018 of the RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY/ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT
- II, ALAPPUZHA
PETITIONER/REVISION PETITIONER:
SASI @ P.C.SASEENDRAN, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.CHELLAPPAN CHETTIYAR,
M/S.SALESH DRESS CLEANERS, ROOM NO.XII/814 (NEW NO.30/470),
SREEKRISHNA BUILDINGS, PAZHAVEEDU BHAGAVATHY TEMPLE, PAZHAVEED.P.O.,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688009, RESIDING AT SALESH NIVAS,
KAITHAVANA, SANATHANAPURAM.P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688003.
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
P.RAMAKRISHNAN, AGED 80 YEARS, S/O.PADMANABHA BHATTAR, LAKSHMI
GARDENS, PAZHAVEEDU, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688003.
Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the
affidavit filed therewith the High Court be pleased to stay the execution
proceedings in R.C.P No.10 of 2016 before the Rent Control Court, Alappuzha,
pending final disposal of the above Rent Control Revision.
This application again coming on for orders upon perusing the
application and the affidavit filed in support thereof, and this court's
order dated 3.9.2021 and upon hearing the arguments of M/S
M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY & SHIJOY JOHN MATHEW, Advocates for the petitioner, the
court passed the following:
(p.t.o)
ANIL K. NARENDRAN &
K. BABU, JJ.
-------------------------------------------------
I.A.No.1 of 2020 in R.C.R.No.34 of 2020
&
R.C.R.No.34 of 2020
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of September, 2021
ORDER
Anil K. Narendran, J.
This revision petition is one filed by the petitioner-tenant, under
Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965,
against the judgment dated 31.10.2019 in R.C.A.No.3 of 2018 of the
Rent Control Appellate Authority (Addl. District Judge-II), Alappuzha,
arising out of the order of the Rent Control Court (Munisiff), Alappuzha,
dated 31.10.2017 in R.C.P.No.10 of 2016. The address of the
respondent-landlord is shown in the cause title as follows:
"P.Ramakrishnan, aged 80,
S/o.Padmanabha Bhattar,
Lakshmi Gardens, Pazhaveedu,
Alappuzha District, Pin-688 003."
Notice issued to the respondent returned with an endorsement
"not known". By the order dated 07.04.2021, the petitioner was directed
to take steps to complete service of notice on the respondent, within
two weeks. In I.A.No.1 of 2020, this Court has extended the interim
stay, for a further period of three weeks.
I.A.No.1 of 2020 in R.C.R.No.34 of 2020
&
R.C.R.No.34 of 2020
On 31.08.2021, when this revision came up for consideration, the
learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to file a memo showing
the correct address of the respondent, who is none other than the
landlord.
Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration the learned
counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo showing the address of the
respondent, as shown in the cause title:
"P.Ramakrishnan, aged 80,
S/o.Padmanabha Bhattar,
Lekshmi Gardens, Pazhaveedu,
Alappuzha District, Pin-688 003."
In Sali Mohan v. Kolazhi Grama Panchayath, Thrissur and
others [2015 (4) KHC 261 : 2015 (3) KLT 799] this Court held that
a postal article with incomplete or indefinite address, without specifying
some definite place for delivery, such as a particular house or building,
or a particular post box, or a particular number in a street, along with
the name of the locality where the addressee resides or carries on
business or employed, cannot be termed as one 'properly addressed' in
order to draw a presumption as to service of document by post, under
Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, or Section 26 of the
Interpretation and General Clauses Act, 1125, or under Section 16 or
Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872. This Court held further that, for
I.A.No.1 of 2020 in R.C.R.No.34 of 2020
&
R.C.R.No.34 of 2020
drawing a presumption under the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 51 of
the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971 that the notice had been duly
served on the respondent, one of the essential circumstances is that the
notice was 'properly addressed'. Paragraphs 18 and 19 of the said
judgment read thus;
"18. As I have already noticed, Section 27 of the General
Clauses Act, 1897 as well as Section 26 of the Interpretation
and General Clauses Act, 1125 do not lay down an inflexible
or conclusive presumption as to service of notice by
registered post. It only states that, a presumption as to
service of document by post can be drawn if the
circumstances enumerated in Section 27 of the Central Act
or Section 26 of the State Act are present, unless the
contrary is proved. One of the essential circumstances for
drawing such a presumption as to service of document by
post is that, the registered postal article should be 'properly
addressed'. A postal article with incomplete or indefinite
address, without specifying some definite place for delivery,
such as a particular house or building, or a particular post
box, or a particular number in a street, along with the name
of the locality where the addressee resides or carries on
business or employed, cannot be termed as one 'properly
addressed' in order to draw a presumption as to service of
document by post, under Section 27 of the Central Act or
Section 26 of the State Act, or under Section 16 or Section
114 of the Evidence Act.
19. Similarly, for drawing a presumption under the proviso
to sub-rule (2) of Rule 51 of the Rules of the High Court of
I.A.No.1 of 2020 in R.C.R.No.34 of 2020
&
R.C.R.No.34 of 2020
Kerala, that the notice had been duly served on the
respondent, one of the essential circumstances is that the
notice was 'properly addressed'. If the postal article
containing the notice issued by this Court contain only an
incomplete or indefinite address, without specifying some
definite place for delivery, such as a particular house or
building, or a particular post box, or a particular number in a
street, along with the name of the locality where the
respondent resides or carries on business or employed, it
cannot be termed as a notice 'properly addressed' to the
respondent, in order to draw a presumption under the
proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 51, that the notice had been
duly served on such respondent."'
The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he shall
get necessary instructions as to the correct and complete address of the
respondent and file a memo to take fresh steps.
As requested by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list on
29.09.2021.
I.A.No.1 of 2020
Interim order is extended by two months.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
K. BABU, JUDGE
AS
09-09-2021 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
