G K KRISHNAN Vs. MEENAKSHIKUTTY AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A tenant in a Rent Control proceedings is the petitioner before me, R. C. No. 56 of 1970 was filed against him seeking eviction on the ground of arrears of rent and bona fide need. The Rent Control court found bona fide need in favour of the respondent and ordered eviction which was confirmed by the appellate authority and the revisional court. This revision challenges the order passed by the District Judge, Ernakulam in R. C. R. P. No. 94 of 1976 directing the petitioner to surrender the building to the respondent.

(2.) TWO important questions are raised by the counsel for the petitioner before me. The first question is that the court below committed an error of jurisdiction in so far as the petition for eviction was not preceded by a valid notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act which according to him is a statutory mandatory requirement to sustain an application for eviction. The second point urged is that the bona fide need put forward by the respondent is not really bona fide and is falsified by various circumstances which he brought to my notice during his submissions at the Bar. I shall deal with these two questions separately.

(3.) WHETHER a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is necessary or not is a question not free from doubt. But in this case the respondent's counsel conceded before me, for the purpose of this petition, that a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is necessary. According to him there is a notice in this case satisfying the requirements of that section.