Krishna Swaroop Agarwal (Dead) Through Legal Representative vs. Arvind Kumar – CIVIL APPEAL

Download Supreme Court Judgment PDF: Krishna Swaroop Agarwal (Dead) Through Legal Representative vs. Arvind Kumar.

I. Case Identification & Vitals

1. Court:
Supreme Court of India

2. Case Title:
Krishna Swaroop Agarwal (Dead) Through Legal Representative vs. Arvind Kumar

3. Document Type and Date of Judgment:
Judgment, July 16, 2025

4. Case Number:
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9518 OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 26340/2017)

5. SCR Citation:
NA

6. Neutral Citation:
2025 INSC 859

7. Disposal Nature:
Appeal Allowed

8. Case Type:
CIVIL APPEAL

9. Law Applicable:
Property Law, Rent Control Law, Civil Procedure

10. Bench:

1. Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Karol
2. Hon’ble Justice Joymalya Bagchi

11. Judgment Authored by:
Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Karol*

II. Summaries & Core Issues

12. Headnote:
This Supreme Court judgment addresses whether an eviction decree based on a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is valid when the notice sent via Registered Post is returned with an endorsement “ND” (Not Delivered). The Court ruled that such notice satisfies the requirement of “deemed service” under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The High Court had erred in reversing the Trial Court’s eviction decree by misinterpreting postal endorsement. The judgment clarifies the legal standards for deemed service and restricts unwarranted interference in second appellate/revisional jurisdiction where procedural fairness has not been compromised.

13. Short Summary:
The Supreme Court upheld an eviction decree despite a returned notice marked “ND” (Not Delivered), ruling that service was legally deemed complete. The judgment secures landlords’ rights against tenant delays and affirms the principles of deemed service.

14. Issue for Consideration:
Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the eviction decree on the ground that notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was not served, as the postal return was endorsed “ND” (Not Delivered).

III. Procedural & Factual Background

15. Case Start Date:
December 06, 2000

16. Case Arising From:
The matter originated in SCC Suit No. 23 of 2000 before the Civil Judge, Hathras, where the landlord (Appellant) sought eviction of the tenant (Respondent) over non-payment of rent and taxes. The Trial Court passed an eviction decree. The High Court reversed this decision on the basis that service of notice was not proved, interpreting the postal endorsement “ND” as invalid service. This led to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

17. Background and Facts:
The appellant, landlord of a property in Hathras, leased the premises to the respondent at Rs. 3,000 per month. The respondent defaulted on rent and tax payments from June 1, 1999 to September 11, 2000. Legal notices were sent via Registered Post but returned marked “ND”. Proceedings began on December 6, 2000. Despite several opportunities, the respondent failed to deposit arrears or file a written statement. The Trial Court decreed eviction. The High Court reversed, stating that service of notice was insufficient due to the “ND” return mark.

18. Timeline:

• June 1, 1999: Rent default begins
• September 12 & November 1, 2000: Legal notices sent
• December 6, 2000: Case filed before Civil Judge, Hathras
• May 27, 2011: Trial Court decrees eviction
• November 26, 2011: Decree finalised
• October 7, 2016: High Court sets aside decree
• July 16, 2025: Supreme Court restores Trial Court decree

19. Parties Involved:

• Appellant (Landlord): Krishna Swaroop Agarwal (Dead) Through Legal Representative
• Respondent (Tenant): Arvind Kumar

20. Procedural History:

• Trial Court (SCC Suit No. 23/2000): Decreed eviction and partial relief on dues
• High Court (Civil Revision No. 22/2012): Set aside eviction decree citing lack of notice
• Supreme Court: Reversed High Court and restored Trial Court’s order

IV. Legal Analysis & Arguments

21. Issues Framed:
Not Applicable

22. Areas of Debate:

1. Whether “ND” (Not Delivered) postal endorsement can be construed as valid service.
2. Whether the High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction under CPC.
3. Applicability of deemed service under General Clauses Act to eviction notices.

23. Cases Cited by Petitioner/Appellant:

• M/s Madan & Co. v. Wazir Jaivir Chand, (1989) 1 SCC 264
• C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed, (2007) 6 SCC 555
• Vishwabandhu v. Srikrishna, (2021) 19 SCC 549

24. Cases Cited by Respondent/Defendant:
NA

25. Acts/Rules/Orders Referred:

1. Transfer of Property Act, 1882
   • Section 106: Termination of tenancy by notice
2. General Clauses Act, 1897
   • Section 27: Deemed service of postal communication
3. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
   • Order V Rule 9(5): Service of summons
   • Order IX Rule 7; Order VIII Rules 1 & 10

26. Acts/Rules/Orders Governing the Case: Transfer of Property Act, 1882; General Clauses Act, 1897; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

27. Literature Citation:
NA

28. Appearances for Parties:

• Appellant: Not specified in judgment
• Respondent: Not specified in judgment
• Witness: PW-1 (Landlord)

29. Prayer: Eviction of tenant, recovery of rent, water tax, house tax, and mesne profits.

30. Evidence & Findings:

1. Evidence: Legal notices sent via Registered Post
   • Finding: Valid service under Section 27 of General Clauses Act
2. Evidence: Rent arrears and tax default records
   • Finding: Tenant had failed to deposit rent or taxes for over 12 months

31. Petitioner/Appellant Arguments:

1. Notice under Section 106 was validly served per legal standards.
2. Tenant deliberately avoided appearance and payment.
3. High Court exceeded revisional powers and misapplied postal law.

32. Respondent/Defendant Arguments:

1. Notice was never delivered and hence, no valid termination of tenancy.
2. Eviction decree based on insufficient service was unlawful.

V. Judgment & Conclusion

33. Ratio Decidendi:

1. Postal endorsement “ND” does not negate valid service under Section 27 of General Clauses Act.
2. High Court erred in interpreting “ND” as lack of service; deemed service is triggered by proper dispatch.
3. Revisional jurisdiction cannot be used to reappreciate evidence or substitute factual findings of Trial Court.

34. Final Decision: The appeal is allowed. The eviction decree dated November 26, 2011 passed in SCC Suit No. 23 of 2000 is restored. Respondent is directed to hand over vacant possession and clear all dues within three months.

35. Legal Jargons and Maxims:

• Deemed Service: Legal presumption of service when notice is properly dispatched.
• Mesne Profit: Compensation for unlawful possession of property after tenancy ends.
• Revisional Jurisdiction: Court’s power to correct jurisdictional or legal errors in subordinate court orders.

36. Exhibits:

• Exhibit Ka-14 to Ka-16: Returned postal notices marked “ND”

VI. Key Learnings for Law Students and Legal Professionals

This judgment reinforces that service of legal notices under tenancy laws is complete upon proper dispatch via Registered Post. The endorsement “ND” (Not Delivered) does not void service. It also draws a clear line on the limits of revisional jurisdiction, reaffirming that High Courts cannot interfere merely because a different view is possible. Landlords must ensure statutory compliance in dispatch, but once done, the burden shifts to the tenant.

Important Keywords for Krishna Swaroop Agarwal vs Arvind Kumar Judgment

Krishna Swaroop Agarwal vs Arvind Kumar Supreme Court judgment, eviction notice ND not delivered, Section 106 Transfer of Property Act notice, deemed service postal law, SCC Suit No. 23/2000 Hathras, Supreme Court eviction decree upheld, rent control dispute Supreme Court, General Clauses Act Section 27, postal endorsement ND legal meaning, High Court revisional jurisdiction error