HUB LAL Vs. BHUDEO PRASAD SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendants second appeal arising out of a suit filed by the plaintiff respondent for ejectment of the defendant appellant from the premises in suit on the ground of default in the payment of rent after the receipt of the notice dated 26th Aught, 1970. The relevant facts for the purposes of this appeal are that the appellant is a tenant of the premises in dispute at the rate of Rs. 10/ per mensem. On 26th Aug., 1970, a composite notice of demand and termination of tenancy under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of property Act was sent to the appellant which was alleged to have been refused by the appellant on 2nd Sept., 1970. It has been further alleged that the rent due was from 1st April, 1970 up to 31st Aug., :1970. Rs.e. for more than four months. The allegation, therefore, was that in spite of service of a notice of demand the appellant did not pay rent and as such he was a defaulter within the meaning of Sec. 3 (1) (a) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. The appellant contested the suit on the ground that he was not a defaulter. He alleged that he had offered the rent but was refused by the respondent and that he deposited the rent under Sec. 7-C of the Act. He further alleged that the notice to quit was invalid and that in fact the notice of demand was not served upon him as alleged by the plaintiff respondent.

(2.) Two issues were framed by the trial court, one whether the notice was served on the appellant and as such whether the appellant was a defaulter within the meaning of Sec. 3 (1) (a) of the Act, and the second whether the defendant appellants tenancy was legally determined. The trial court held both these issues against the applicant and, therefore, decreed the suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent. Against the said judgment the appellant filed an appeal which was also dismissed by the lower appellate court on 29th Aug., 1972. The judgment dated 29th Aug., 1972 has been impugned in the present second appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the composite notice of demand and termination of tenancy dated 26th Aug., 1970, which is alleged to have been served on the appellant by refusal on 2nd Sept., 1970, is not a valid service of notice in the eye of law and as such the appellant cannot be held to be a defaulter.