RAM SWARUP Vs. BRIJ NANDAN PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenants' second appeal against the concurrent decisions of the courts below decreeing the landlord's suit for their ejectment and recovery of Rs. 52/- as arrears of rent. It is common ground that the plaintiff-respondent Brij Nandan Prasad is the landlord of the accommodation which was occupied by the defendant appellants Ram Swarup and others on a rent of Rs. 2/- per month. The tenants defaulted in payment of rent and the arrears accumulated to Rs. 50/. Thereupon the landlord served all the tenants with a notice of demand under Section 3 of the U. P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act and a conditional notice terminating the tenancy if the rent was not paid within one month-of the receipt of the notice of demand. The tenants resisted the suit and raised a number of Dieas which need not be considered in this case as all of them were rejected by both the Courts below and were not pressed before me in this appeal, except one.

(2.) Mr. K. C. Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellants attacked the legality of the notice served by the landlord under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. He contended that there was no valid termination of the tenancy, and the suit for ejectment should have been dismissed on this ground alone. The notice sent by the landlord was a combined notice under Section 3 of the U. P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act. and Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, and it is net disputed that the landlord could combine a notice of demand for arrears of rent with a conditional note terminating the tenancy, if the rent was not paid within a month. Counsel also conceded after some discussion that the portion of the notice which purports to be a demand for rent under Section 3 of the U. P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act is not invalid, but he argued that the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was ineffective. The-relevant words of the notice are:

(3.) Mr. Agarwal argued that this notice is illegal as it asked the tenant to vacate the accommodation within one month of the receipt of the notice whereas under Section 106 the landlord is required to give thirty days clear notice. According to counsel, the words "andar ek mah" meant that the tenant was required to vacate the premises before the expiry of a month. Learned counsel relied on an unreported decision of a Division Bench of this Court (Sriwastava and Jagdish Sahai, JJ.) in which a notice requiring the tenant to vacate a house within one month ("andar ek mah makan ko khali kar ke qabza de de") was held invalid. Special Appear No. 434 of 1959 (All), Kashi Prasad Gupta v. Roop Narain. Learned counsel also cited two of my own decisions in which I held that a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act should express a dear and unequivocal intention to terminate the tenancy. Sunder Lal v. Ram Krishan, 1960 All LJ 152 : (AIR 1960 All 544), Balloo Ram v. Chhedi Lal, 1960 All LJ 213 : (AIR 1960 All 477). Counsel contended that the impugned notice in this case does not express any clear intention to terminate the tenancy as the word "termination" had not been used by the landlord at all in the notice and thus there was no valid termination. I cannot agree. It is true that the landlord did not say in to many words that the tenants' tenancy would stand terminated in the event of his not paying the arrears of rent within a month but this was the clear intention. The nature and purpose of the notice must be gathered by reading the document as a whole and not from any words read out of context or from any omission to use the formal language cf a solicitor. Where the landlord warns the tenant that if he fails to clear the arrears of rent within a month of the receipt of the notice he will be liable to ejectment and in that event he must treat the notice as a "legal notice" and vacate the accommodation within a month, it is clear that the demand that the tenant should vacate the accommodation signifies the termination of the tenancy and the words "legal notice" could only refer to a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. I think the notice in this case was effective under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.