HARCHARAN SINGH Vs. SHIVRANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's appeal by special leave directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Allahabad High Court on February 16, 1979 in Second Appeal No. 430 of 1970 whereby the High Court decreed the respondents' (landlords) suit for ejectment against the appellant (tenant) and the only question of substance raised in the appeal is whether when the landlords' notice demanding arrears and seeking eviction is sent by registered post and is refused by the tenant the latter could be imputed with the knowledge of the contents thereof so that upon his failure to comply with the notice the tenant could be said to have committed wilful default in payment of rent

(2.) The question arises in these circumstances:The appellant occupied shop No. 5 in Ivanhoe Estate, situated at Landure Cantonment, Mussorie, originally owned by one Parvij Waris Rasool, on an yearly rental of Rs. 250/- payable by December 31, every year. The property at all material times was admittedly governed by the U. P. Cantonments (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, X of 1952 - a Central Act and, in my view, all the Courts below rightly dealt with the matter as being governed by that Act and not by U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, much less by the later U. P. (Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The respondents purchased the aforesaid Estate from its previous owner on November 27, 1964 and the previous owner attorned the tenancy of the appellant to the respondents along with the rental due from him for the year 1964. The appellant continued to be the tenant of the shop during the years 1965 and well but since he did not pay the rent the respondents on November 9, 1966 gave a combined notice demanding payment of arrears and seeking ejectment on termination of tenancy which was refused by him on November 10, 1966. On his failure to comply with the requisitions contained in the notice the respondents filed a suit against the appellant seeking eviction as well as recovery of rents and mesne profits.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the appellant, inter alia, on the ground that the rent of the accommodation payable to the previous owner was Rs. 250/- per annum less 10 per cent rebate on account of repairs; that in 1964 at the intervention of some common friends he agreed to vacate and did surrender the residential portion of the shop comprising two rooms, one kitchen, one bath room and one varandah at the back of the shop in consideration of respondents relinquishing the rental of Rs. 250/- due from him for the year 1964:that for the years 1965 and 1966 the rental for the remaining shop was reduced by agreement to Rs. 50/- per annum less rebate for repairs and that he had sent a cheque for the amount due to the respondents. He denied, that he has committed default in payment of rents and averred that no notice of demand and ejectment was served on him and consequently prayed for dismissal of the suit.