In a landmark judgment passed by the Supreme Court of India on 16th July, 2025 in the case of KRISHNA SWAROOP AGARWAL (DEAD) THR. LR. VERSUS ARVIND KUMAR, it overruled a High Court order on the ground of setting aside an ejectment decree, just because it was argued that notice had not been served. This decision, on Civil Appeal No. 9518 of 2025, has explained the import of the meaning of the term deemed service under Act No. 27 of the General Clauses in 1887 and a confirmation on the efficacy of the registered post as a mode of legal communication.
History of the Conflict
The gist of the argument was that there was a landlord Krishna Swaroop Agarwal (appellant) who owned a property located at Sadababd Gate, Agra Road, in Hathras. The respondent (Mr. Arvind Kumar) was a tenant of this property whose monthly rent payment was Rs. 3,000/- that included water and house tax. Term of tenancy on the first day of the English month, the end of the same month.
The tenant defaulted the payment of rents since June 1, 1999, to September 11, 2000, amounting to Rs. 38,416 in total alongside other sums in the forms of water as well as house tax. Accordingly on September 12, 2000 and November 1, 2000 the landlord issued legal notices by the medium of Registered A.D. Post. Such notices required the amount of outstanding to be paid with 10 percent interest per annum, the cost of legal notice, and vacant possession of the suit property.
For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators ) contact@legalmaestros.com.
Journey at the Courts
The case came to be heard before the Civil Judge, Hathras on December 6, 2000. February 12, 2001, summons was issued to the respondent and no appearance was made. The court on April 13, 2001 held that service on the Registry was adequate and then acted ex-parte against the respondent. Although a number of applications and adjournments were made, the tenant did not do the required written statement and the court noted on October 27, 2004, that the suit will be taken ex-parte. The court dismissed an application by the tenant, citing under Order IX Rule 7 that there was a medical emergency to file the written statement but the notice was served on April 13, 2001, and no counterclaim or written statement was submitted as on October 27, 2004.
Subsequent offers of compromise were not successful and the tenant did not pay the remaining rent even after the court accorded him a chance to do this through payment of the costs and the deposit of the money. The allowance of cross-examination by the tenant of a witness was closed on ground of non-appearance, an application of the landlord under Order XV Rule 5 of CPC seeking that the tenant strike-off its defense on the ground of non-payment of dues within the period of 7 years was admitted.
In the end, the suit was pronounced on May 27, 2011 with the formal pronouncement being made on November 26, 2011. In the order, the tenant was instructed to quit the property and deliver peaceful possession to the plaintiff within one month and pay all arrears of rent since June 1, 1999, and mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 2,500 per month with a 9 percent interest till the delivery of quiet possession was made. Recovery suit (arrears of house tax, water tax and damages used to the roof) was dismissed.
Reversal of the High Court
Feeling aggrieved about the decision of the Trial Court, the tenant trotted the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The tenant said that he was not served with the notice stating the termination of tenancy under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. That was the key dispute, namely the registered post with a notice was returned by the postal department under the verification “ND”. The High Court took the meaning of “ND” to be “Not Delivered” and thus it held that upon failure to deliver the document, and the fact that the non delivery was not because the revisionist had avoided service, the notice was not served. In view of this reading, the High Court was in opinion that the service of notice finding was invalid and perverse, and the ejectment could thereafter not be maintained.
Restarting of Deemed Service by Supreme Court
The Supreme Court carefully considered the High Court reasons and conclusively held that the same were flawed in its logic. The apex court has pointed out to the High Court of its oversight in Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1887, which explicitly focuses on service by-post. Under this section the service shall be deemed to be effected within the provisions of the section unless it is expressed that there was a different intention, provided a document is properly addressed, prepaid, and duly posted by the registered post and is presumed to have been effected when the letter would have been delivered in the ordinary course of post.
The Supreme Court has repeated its stand on deemed service and asked reference to various judgments made earlier. In M/s. Madan and Co. v. Wazir Jaivir Chand, the court explained that to abide by service requirements through post, all the landlord needed to do was to put a prepaid registered post with the proper address. After doing so, delivery is assumed under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act regardless as to whether the addressee may approve or disapprove. The same principles were upheld in the case of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and Order V Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 whereby default of acceptance of summons was held as deemed service. The Court further referred to a series of other decisions, which endorsed the concept of deemed service in the case where documents are send through registered post.
It was clearly indicated by the Court that the conclusion made by the High Court, which was only based upon the endorsement by the court as ND, was not correct since it was not an inference of the statutory presumption about service as provided by Section 27 General Clauses Act. The Court would stress that a notice that has been given by means of Registered Post, as is done as per the Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, is considered to have been made as per law.
Deciding that there was no acceptable cause why the High Court should have intervened with the decision of the Trial Court in light of the provisions of the revisional jurisdiction, the Supreme Court permitted the appeal. Accordingly, the decree of ejectment made by the Trial Court vide S.C.C. Suit No. 23/2000 was reinstated.
The tenement was ordered such that he would deliver up vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property to the landlord within a time span of three months, after the time of communication of the judgment. During the same period, the tenant was also required to clear all arrears of rent/occupational charges, mesne profit and arrears of tax (water, house or otherwise). This ruling gives a clear guidance to legal rule of deemed service and clarifies far reaching issues as regards the duties of the parties involved in a legal exchange of messages through registered post.
