SNEH VAISH Vs. STATE BANK OF PATIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case is on the Regular Board of this Court since 2.2.2012. Today, the matter is effective item No. 15 on the Regular Board. No one appears for the respondents although it is 3.15 P.M. I have therefore heard counsel for the appellants, and after perusing the record, am proceeding to dispose of the appeal.

(2.) The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal (RFA) filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the Trial Court dated 29.11.2003 dismissing the suit for possession and mesne profits filed by the appellants/plaintiffs/landladies. The Trial Court has dismissed the suit on the ground that what was the monthly tenancy was not proved and therefore the notice terminating tenancy dated 18.8.1998, Ex. PW1/4, cannot be said to have validly terminated the tenancy.

(3.) The impugned judgment was passed on 29.11.2003 and the Trial Court has committed an error in overlooking the Transfer of Property (Amendment) Act, 2002 which became applicable from 31.12.2002. As per this Amendment Act, Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was amended, and thereby, objections as to invalidity of notices terminating tenancy was done away with as long as a period of 15 days was given to a tenant to vacate the premises. This Amendment Act also applies to the pending proceedings. The Amendment Act reads as under:-