SUDERSHAN KUMAR Vs. RATTAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The premises of the landlord Rattan Lal were let out to the tenant Sudharshan Kumar by a rent note executed on 12th August 1963 in which the material words are as follows :- "Tenancy will commence from today or this day". The tenancy was to be for a period of eleven months. The rent was payable according to the English calendar month. The landlord filed a petition for eviction against the tenant on two grounds covered by clauses (c) and (j) of the proviso to section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, namely, user of the premises for a purpose other than that for which they were let and that the tenant has caused substantial damage to the premises. The pleading of the landlord on the question of termination of the tenancy by a notice to quit under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act were as follows :-

(2.) The Controller granted an order for eviction to the landlord under clause (c) of the proviso to section 14(1). But this order was varied by the Rent Control Tribunal in the first appeal filed by the tenant by granting the conditional order for eviction under clause (j) of the said proviso, the condition being under sub-section (10) of section 14, namely, that the tenant shall carry out repairs, to the damage caused by him to the satisfaction of the Controller within one month and it is only if he fails to do so that the order for recovery of possession could be made. Against this order of the Rent Control Tribunal both the landlord and the tenant have filed appeals. A preliminary question arises as to whether the tenancy was terminated by the landlord before the filing of the application for eviction. The Controller only remarked in para 10 of his order that the tenancy was terminated by the notice Exhibit A-3 with effect from 11-12-1967. The Rent Control Tribunal did not allow the tenant to argue the validity of the notice on the ground that he had not raised this point specifically in the written statement and had not pleaded that the tenancy month was from 13th of each month after the expiry of the original tenancy for 11 months. Two questions, therefore, arise for decision :-

(3.) In dealing with the first point, we have only to consider whether quite apart from any defence made by the tenant and assuming that the pleading made by the landlord are true they amount in law to showing that the tenan- cy was validly terminated. I he tenancy was created by a rent note which is referred to in the pleading of the landlord and which is filed by him. It is in Urdu but the crucial words are that it was to commence "from today or this day". The first paragraph of section 110 of the Transfer of property Act is as follows :-