RABINDER NATH SAHA Vs. SUSHMA JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge by means of this Regular Second Appeal is to the two concurrent judgments of the Courts below, the first being of the Original Court dated 26.5.2010, and second being of the second Court/Appellate Court dated 14.12.2010, and by which judgments, the Courts below have decreed the suit for possession of the landlord/respondent against the tenant/appellant. The only issue which is argued and urged before me is that the suit should not have been decided under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC inasmuch as the appellant had disputed receipt of the notice terminating tenancy sent under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. This legal notice is dated 30.5.2007. It is argued that since there was no service of this notice, the tenancy cannot be said to have been terminated and therefore the suit for possession did not lie.

(2.) The Appellate Court has dealt with this aspect in the following terms:

(3.) I do not find any error in the reasoning of the Courts below in holding that the notice terminating tenancy can be said to have been served upon the appellant.