ALLANUR RASULLA Vs. BALCHAND RAMJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this civil revision application was the original defendant. A decree for eviction was passed against him in respect of the suit premises on the ground that the opponent who had purchased the premises on 5-9-1956 had required them reasonably and bona fide for his occupation and also on the ground that the petitionertenant who was a monthly tenant was in arrears of rent for a period of six months or more and he had neglected to make payment thereof before the expiration of one month after notice referred to in sec. 12(2) of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act. The decree passed by the trial Court was confirmed in appeal by the Assistant Judge for Himatnagar at Ahmedabad and hence this revision application.

(2.) The points contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner will be dealt with seriatim. The first contention is that no notice had been given as required by section 12(2) of the Act because a notice was sent by registered-post and was returned unserved. It is contended that in view of the rulings in Vaman v. Khaderao 37 Bombay L.R. 376 at p. 384 and Jugalkishore Jodhmal v. The Bombay Revenue Tribunal 60 Bom. L.R. 1075 at p. 1082 it cannot be treated as a valid notice. In my opinion this question even if it is a question of law as been dealt with by both the Courts below and they have found that the notice had been validly given and this finding even if it is wrong cannot be interfered with in revision.

(3.) It is next contended that in the notice which was given on 2-1-57 the tenant had been asked to vacate the premises on 10-1-57 and therefore the requisite period as stated in sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act had not been given in the notice. It is therefore contended that the notice is bad. The Act is a special Act which over-rides in some respects the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is referred to in section 12(2) of the Act only with regard to the manner of service of the notice and not with regard to the nature of the notice. The Act is a special Act and has provided for a particular manner of service of the notice. The notice referred to in section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is therefore not necessary. However the notice referred to in sub-section (2) of sec. 12 of the Act must be served in the manner referred to in section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act namely in the manner stated in the second part of sec. 106 of the T. P. Act which reads as follows :-