ANTHONY KOCHUVARIATHU Vs. CHAKKALINGA NADAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant is the revision petitioner. Against him the landlord filed BRC. 112/64 before the Rent Controller, Alleppey for eviction under S. 11 (2), (3) and (4) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)Act-Act 2 of 1965 (shortly stated the Act), mainly on the ground that he wants the building for the occupation by his two sons who are dependent on him. THE rent Controller found that the requirement was not bonafide and dismissed the petition; but in appeal the learned appellate authority reversed it, finding that the building is required for the landlord bonafide for the occupation of two of the members of his family who are dependent on him. This order of the appellate authority has been confirmed in revision by the learned District judge of Alleppey.

(2.) TWO points urged on behalf of the revision petitioner were: (1) the allegation that the landlord requires the building bonafide for the occupation of bis sons is not bonafide; and (2) no notice under S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act as is required of law was issued.

(3.) IN the matter of notice under S. 106 of the Tarnsfer of property Act also I do not think there is any case for the revision petitioner. IN the first place, this ground was never taken by him in any of the courts below. Notice was, in fact, sent on 26-6-64. That was received by the tenant on 29-6-64, but no contention was ever made by him about the insufficiency of the notice. IN rejecting a similar contention Krishnamoorthy Iyer, J. , observed in sarada v. Kumaran (1969 KLT. 133 at P. 142) as follows: -. "there is no denial of the receipt of the notices by the revision petitioners. Exs-A2 and A3 are the copies of the notices issued to the revision petitioners. Their counsel contend that the notices do not satisfy the requirements of S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The revision petitioner never contested the adequacy of the notices issued. The District judge is therefore right in refusing to entertain the plea raised before him for the first time. I therefore, over-rule the third ground also. " The situation is the same here also. I would, therefore, overrule the contention of the revision petitioner regarding the adequacy of the notice.