AMINA KHATOON Vs. JOHRA BIBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal ari ses out of a suit for ejectment and reco very of arrears of rent filed by the plain tiff-respondents against Niyamatullah, predecessor of the defendant-appellants, who died during the pendency of the suit in the trial court and after his death the defendant-appellants were brought on re cord as his legal representatives. The property in dispute consisted of a house situate in the town of Pratapgarh which had been let out by the plaintiffs to Niyamatullah at the rate of Rs.10/- per month. The tenant fell in arrears of rent for more than three months. Besides, the landlords required the house for their own residence and for this purpose they moved the District Magistrate for grant ing permission to sue the tenant under the provisions of Section 3 of the U. P. (Tem porary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. The permission was granted. The land lords also sent a notice dated 24/25-8-1960 to the tenant by registered post requiring him to pay the ten months' arrears of rent due at that time within a month from the date of service of the notice, and simulta neously they also purported to terminate the tenancy of the tenant by the same notice under the provisions of Section 106 Transfer of Property Act by requiring the tenant to vacate the house within one month. The tenant refused to accept the notice which was sent by registered post and the same was returned to the land lords. The plaintiff-landlords then filed a suit in the court of the Munsif for re covery of arrears of rent and for posses sion.

(2.) THE suit was contested by the defendant-appellants. The main ground on which the plaintiffs' claim for eject ment was challenged was that no valid notice under Section 106 Transfer of Pro perty Act had been served on the tenant and for that reason the 'tenancy could not be terminated.

(3.) ON an appeal filed by the plain tiffs, the lower appellate court admitted additional evidence to prove the notice (Ext. 8) to have been written under the instructions of the plaintiffs and signed by them. After this additional evidence it was found that the notice had been duly proved to have been signed by the plaintiffs-landlords. That Court further agreed with the finding of the trial court that this notice sent by registered post was refused by the tenant and as such it shall be deemed to have been duly served on him on 26-8-1960. The lower appellate court was further of the opinion that this notice complied with the requirements of Section 106 Transfer of Property Act and as such it validly terminated the tenancy when the tenant failed to vacate the pre mises after the expiry of 30 days from the service of this notice. On these findings the plaintiffs' claim for ejectment was also decreed by the lower appellate court.