ABDULGANI ALIAS GANI ISMAIL Vs. JAISWAL CHIMANLAL MANEKLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . The plaintiff filed the present suit aganst the defendant to recover possession of the suit premises on the ground of arrears of rent which were due from 1st December 1969 until 28th February 1972. On 4th March 1972 the plaintiff served upon the defendant notice termi- nating his tenancy. The defendant received it on 4th April 1972. On 5th May 1972 he filed the present suit for possession and for recovering arrears of rent. The learned trial Judge dismissed the claim for possession on the ground that the statutory notice served upon the defendant was invalid. However he passed in favour of the plaintiff decree for arrears of rent. The plaintiff appealed against that decree to the District Court insofar as his claim for possession was dismissed. The learned appellate Judge held that no notice under sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 was necessary because the defendant was a statutory tenant. He also observed that no notice terminating the tenancy of the defendant was necessary in view of the provisions of sec. 12(2) of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 (Bombay Act No. LVII of 1947). Therefore he set aside the finding recorded by the learned trial Judge that the statutory notice was invalid and passed in favour of the plaintiff decree for possession of the suit premises.

(2.) It is that decree which is challenged by the defendant in this civil revision application.

(3.) The first contention which Mr. R. N. Shah who appears on behalf of the defendant has raised is that notice under sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is necessary even when possession is claimed on the ground of arrears of rent as contemplated by sec. 12 of the Bombay Rent Act. The contention which Mr. R. N. Shah has raised is well founded. Sub-sec. (2) of sec. 12 provides as follows: