ANILKUMAR LALLUBHAI VAGHELA Vs. ARVINDKUMAR SATYARAYAN SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this appeal under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC'), the appellant has challenged the judgment and decree dtd. 7/4/2023 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Anand in Regular Civil Appeal no.127 of 2022 confirming the judgment and decree dtd. 30/7/2022 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Anand in Regular Civil Suit no.97 of 2019.

(2.) Facts of the case suggest that the Original Plaintiff had, in the year 2015, from 16/5/2015 to 15/4/2016, rented the Suit Property to the Original Defendant i.e. the present appellant for a monthly rent of Rs.6500.00 with a notarised agreement. Thereafter, again by notarised agreements between the Original Plaintiff and the Original Defendant on 25/4/2016, the period decided was from 1/5/2017 to 31/5/2017. On 3/8/2017, the rent agreement was drawn for the period between 1/8/2017 to 31/6/2018. The last agreement executed on 1/9/2018, was agreed to lease the Suit Property on rent from 1/7/2018 to 30/10/2018. Therefore, time limit of the agreement expired on 30/10/2018. Thereafter, the Original Plaintiff asked the Original Defendant to vacate the house and return the vacant peaceful possession of the house. The Original Defendant requested the Original Plaintiff to give three to four months time to vacate the Suit Property and also paid rent till Feb-2019. Thereafter, when the Original Defendant did not vacate the house beyond February-2019, again the Original Plaintiff directed the Original Defendant to vacate the Suit Property and also demanded the rent of February-2019, March-2019 and April-2019. The Original Defendant did not vacate the suit property and also did not pay the rent.

(3.) The main contention of Advocate Mr. Dhaval M. Barot for the appellant was that the First Appellate Court committed an error of law and facts by not observing that there was no compliance of the provision of Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as "the T.P. Act"). If the status of a tenant i.e. of the present appellant is required to be considered as tenant holding over, then minimum fifteen days notice is required to be given before filing of the suit.