MUNNALAL AGARWAL Vs. JAGDISH NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein is the landlord of shop No. 142, Mohalla Parwaran in the town of Jhansi and the respondent is the tenant of the said shop on rent at the rate of Rs. 10/- per month. It appears that there is long standing dispute between the parties regarding payment of rent with the result the respondent tenant had been depositing rent under Section 7-C of the U.P. Act No. III of 1947. By U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short the Act) which came into force on 15th July, 1972, the Act No. III of 1947 was repealed. After coming into force of the Act, the respondent continued to deposit rent under Section 30 of the Act. Section 5 of the Act provided that in case of tenancy continuing from before the commencement of the Act, in respect of a building to which the old Act was applicable, the landlord may, by notice in writing given within three months from the commencement of this Act, enhance the rent payable therefor to any amount not exceeding the standard rent.

(2.) In pursuance of the aforesaid provision, the landlord sent a notice on 8th October, 1972 enhancing the rent. Admittedly, the said notice was received by the tenant on 19th October, 1972. The period of three months from the date of commencement of the Act expired on 16th October, 1972. Since the tenant did not pay the enhanced rate of rent to the landlord, the landlord brought a suit for ejectment of the tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent. The said suit was decreed by the trial Court. However, on revision filed by the tenant the decree of the trial Court was set aside and the suit was dismissed. The revisional Court held that since the notice was given to the tenant on 19th October, much after three months of the commencement of the Act, the said notice was illegal and void and the landlord was not entitled to derive any benefit arising thereof. The landlord thereafter filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court dismissed the said writ petition while affirming the order of the revisional Court. It is in this way the appellant is before us.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged that the word given occurring in Section 5 of the Act may be given a literal meaning. According to learned counsel the meaning of the word given means, when the notice was sent to the tenant and not the date when it was received by the tenant and if such a meaning is assigned to the word given, the notice of enhancement of rent sent by the landlord on 8th October, 1972 was a valid notice and the tenant having not complied with the notice had committed default in payment of arrears of rent; rendering himself liable for ejectment from the premises in dispute. It is not disputed that the Act came into force on 15th July, 1972 and three months of commencement of the Act expired on 16th October, 1972. The notice for enhancement of rent was sent by the landlord on 8th of October 1972 which was served on the tenant on 19th October, 1972. The question that arises for consideration is what meaning should be assigned to the word given within three months occurring in Section 5 of the Act. Section 5 of the Act runs as under :