In Brief
A landlord purchased a shop previously occupied by a tenant and sought eviction to use it for his personal business. Under the U.P. Rent Control Act, the landlord must give six months' notice before filing an eviction application. The tenant argued notice was never served; the landlord produced a postal receipt. The lower authorities found adequate notice based on corroborating evidence (tenant's admission of landlord status, tenant's subsequent rent deposit application, and comparative hardship favoring the landlord). The High Court set aside this, requiring registered post proof. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Act prescribes no particular notice mode and that postal receipts with affidavits and surrounding circumstances can prove service. Eviction was ordered.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.