SHANTI DEVI NIGAM Vs. MADANLAL GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Though notice was served on the respondent, he has not entered appearance. The appellant herein filed a suit under S. 20 (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) act, 1972 for eviction of the respondent from the premises. The trial Court ordered eviction. The ground for eviction was arrears of rent Prior to the filing of the suit under S. 20 (2) , the appellant had issued a notice to the respondent under S. 20 (2) (a) of the Act. The trial Court found that the respondent had failed to pay arrears of rent and eviction was granted on the ground of default in paying arrears of rent.

(3.) The respondent filed revision before the District Judge and the same was dismissed. Thereafter, the respondent preferred a writ petition challenging the eviction passed against him. Aggrieved by the same, writ petition was filed before the High Court. By the impugned Judgment, the High Court was of the view that the notice issued by the landlady was not in accordance with law and the High Court was of the view that the landlady should have issued proper notice under S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and as the notice of demand for eviction, was not ending with the month of the tenancy; the same was held to be not in accordance with the mandate of S. 106 of the transfer of Property Act and the eviction ordered by the trial Court was set aside and the matter was remitted for the purpose of redetermination of the arrears of rent.