“ND” Equals Deemed Service: The New Rule on Registered Post Endorsements

Commentary on Supreme Court Judgment in Krishna Swaroop Agarwal (Dead) through LRs v. Arvind Kumar, 2025 INSC 859

1. Introduction

The Supreme Court’s decision dated 16 July 2025 settles a vexed question in landlord–tenant and civil notice jurisprudence: Does the postal endorsement “ND” (“Not Delivered”) defeat the legal fiction of “deemed service” when notice is dispatched by registered post? The appellant–landlord, Late Krishna Swaroop Agarwal (represented by his legal representatives), obtained an ejectment decree from the Small Causes Court, Hathras, for non-payment of rent by the respondent–tenant, Arvind Kumar. The High Court of Allahabad, in revision, set aside that decree solely on the ground that Section 106 notice of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA) was never served because the envelope returned with “ND”. The Supreme Court reversed the High Court, restored the decree, and laid down an authoritative interpretation of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (GCA): once a notice is correctly addressed, prepaid and sent by registered post, service is deemed complete irrespective of the endorsement “ND” unless the addressee proves otherwise.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• Leave granted; appeal allowed.
• Notice under Section 106 TPA had been dispatched twice through Registered A.D. Post; envelopes returned “ND”.
• High Court erred in reading “ND” as conclusive proof of non-service; failed to apply Section 27 GCA and binding precedent.
• Power of revision cannot be exercised to disturb a well-reasoned trial decree absent jurisdictional error or procedural infirmity.
• Decree of ejectment, mesne profits @ ₹2,500 p.m. with 9 % interest reinstated; tenant given three months to vacate and clear dues.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. Madan & Co. v. Wazir Jaivir Chand, (1989) 1 SCC 264 – Established that dispatch of a registered letter fulfills the landlord’s statutory duty; acceptance or refusal immaterial. Provided the foundational understanding of deemed service.
2. C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Mohammed, (2007) 6 SCC 555 – Under NI Act §138, cause of action accrues once notice sent by registered post; deemed service applies. Confirmed universal applicability of Section 27 GCA.
3. Vishwabandhu v. Srikrishna, (2021) 19 SCC 549 – Refusal/endorsement in registered summons equals valid service under Order V Rule 9(5) CPC.
4. Additional cases reaffirming deemed service: GMADA v. Manju Jain (2010) 9 SCC 157; GEB v. Atmaram (1989) 2 SCC 602; Poonam Verma v. DDA (2007) 13 SCC 154; and others. Their cumulative effect fortified an unbroken line of authority which the High Court ignored.
5. Hari Shankar v. Rao Girdhari Lal Chowdhury, AIR 1963 SC 698 – Defined the limited scope of revisional interference. Supreme Court used it to underscore that the High Court’s interference was beyond those limits.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

1. Statutory Nexus: Section 106 TPA (termination of monthly tenancy) requires notice, but is silent on mode. Section 27 GCA bridges the gap by creating a presumption of service once sent by registered post.
2. Interpretation of “ND” Endorsement: • High Court’s finding: “ND = Not Delivered” → no service. • Supreme Court’s finding: Endorsement neither shows refusal nor lack of attempt; but statutory presumption of Section 27 applies unless the addressee rebuts it. • Burden lies on the tenant to prove non-service; mere return “ND” does not discharge that burden.
3. Doctrine of Deemed Service: – A legal fiction ensuring that a party cannot defeat legal process by evasion or fortuitous postal events. – Once invoked, actual physical receipt is irrelevant unless disproved.
4. Revisional Jurisdiction Constraints: – Allahabad High Court transgressed the narrow bounds set in Hari Shankar by re-appreciating evidence and substituting its view for the trial court.

3.3 Likely Impact on Future Litigation and Practice

• Clarity on “ND”: Postal departments frequently use non-standard abbreviations. The ruling eliminates ambiguity by equating “ND” with other notations (“Refused”, “Unclaimed”) that do not rebut service.
• Strengthens Landlords’ Position: Tenants cannot exploit postal semantics to delay eviction proceedings. Expect faster disposal of rent-arrear and ejectment cases.
• Broader Civil Procedure: The principle applies wherever any Central Act authorises service by post—company law, tax, consumer disputes, etc.—reducing satellite litigation on notice validity.
• Revisional Discipline: High Courts must confine themselves to jurisdictional errors; fact-based findings on service will rarely justify interference.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 106 Trans­fer of Property Act, 1882

Requires a landlord to give 15 days’ notice to terminate a monthly tenancy. No prescribed mode; court-made practice prefers registered post for proof.

Section 27 General Clauses Act, 1897

Creates a rebuttable presumption: if a document is correctly addressed, prepaid and sent by registered post, service is deemed complete at the ordinary delivery time.

Deemed Service

A legal presumption that notice has reached the addressee, even without proof of actual receipt, unless proved otherwise.

Revisional Jurisdiction

Power of a higher court to correct jurisdictional or material irregularities, but not to act as a second appellate court on facts.

Mesne Profits

Compensation payable by a wrongful occupant for unauthorized use of property, usually calculated as reasonable rent.

5. Conclusion

The Supreme Court in Krishna Swaroop Agarwal v. Arvind Kumar has crystallised an important procedural rule: an endorsement of “ND” on a registered envelope does not nullify the presumption of service under Section 27 GCA. The decision realigns lower-court practice with settled precedent, curbs dilatory tactics in rent litigation, and re-emphasises the limited sweep of revisional power. Practitioners should henceforth ensure that, once registered dispatch is proved, the burden squarely shifts to the addressee to rebut service—postal acronyms alone will not suffice. In the wider legal landscape, the ruling promotes certainty, procedural efficiency, and respect for statutory fictions designed to prevent abuse of process.