SARVAN KUMAR Vs. SOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent Sohan Lal filed a suit for possession and. mesne profits, against Sarvan Kumar and Kanhiya Lal sons of Ganga Ram deceased on the ground that Ganga Ram was the tenant in respect of a shop in dispute. The plaintiff alleged that he had terminated his tenancy with effect from 30-4-1974 by a registered notice. After the service of the notice the said Ganga Ram became a statutory tenant.. He died on 5-1-1977. The possession of the defendants became unauthorised.

(2.) The defendants denied that the tenancy of Ganga Ram had been terminated. They said they have inherited the tenancy and are not liable to be evicted. Since there is a relationship of landlord and tenant, the suit was not maintainable. The learned trial court rejected their contentions and decreed the suit. The learned Additional District Judge by his order on 19-8-1983 dismissed the appeal. Hence, this second appeal.

(3.) The substantial point of law that Mr. Kohli vehemently urged in this case is that even if a notice of termination under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was duly served on the deceased Ganga Ram, it did not terminate his tenancy at all. His main reliance is upon the case of V. Dhanpal Chattiar v. Yesodai Ammal, AIR 1979 S.C. 1745. He specifically invited my attention towards the passages in the said judgment which will be profitable to extract in order to understand the argument of Mr. Kohli :