RAM BHUSHAN Vs. KALU RAM CHAKRAVARTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri reversing the decree of Munsif Kheri and thereby dismissing the plaintiff-appellant's suit for ejectment.

(2.) The appellant Ram Bhushan and his mother Smt. Vishnu Daya Gupta are the landlords of the respondent Kalu Ram Chakravarty in a certain house. The plaintiffs filed a suit for ejectment against him on the allegation that he was in arrears, that his tenancy had bee terminated and he was asked to vacate the premises but despite service of notice neither the rent was paid nor was the house vacated. The suit was contested on a variety of grounds including the ground that the notice was invalid. The trial Court held that valid notice was served upon the defendant respondent and that he had committed default in the payment of rent and upon these two findings in the main the suit for ejectment and arrears of rent was decreed. The defendant appealed. The lower appellate Court held that the notice (Ext.1) did not terminate the tenancy of the respondent and no that account did not comply with the requirements of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and was invalid. The notice was held by the lower appellate Court to be invalid on a second count also. It was held that the notice was signed by only one of the plaintiff-landlords and not by both of them and on this ground it was held to be invalid. In the result the appeal was allowed and the decree for ejectment passed by the trial Court was set aside. The suit was dismissed completely.

(3.) Before me it was urged by the learned counsel for the appellants in the first place, that the lower appellate Court was in error in holding that the notice was invalid because it was signed by only one of the plaintiffs. This is to my mind valid submission because a perusal of the notice shows that it purported to have been given by the lawyer of both the plaintiff appellants on behalf of both the plaintiffs and it was signed not only by the lawyer but also by one of the plaintiffs. That being so, the notice must be found to have been given at the instance of both the plaintiffs. A part from this in the plaint both the plaintiffs had joined and both of them had jointly alleged that they had given a notice to the respondent terminating his tenancy. In the case of Misri Lal v. Ram Gopal,1965 AndhWR 753 it was held that where a notice of termination, though signed by one of the joint owners, says that it was being sent on behalf of all them, and subsequently all of them state, in the plaint of a suit for ejectment, that they sent a notice of termination, it will be presumed that the statement in the notice is correct, and the onus will be on the tenant to prove that the notice was not on behalf of all the joint owners. I respectfully agree with the view expressed there and hold that the notice cannot be found to be invalid on this ground.