ABDUL GAFFAR KHAN Vs. JAGDISH PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner is a tenant of the shop in dispute on a monthly rent of Rs. 800.00. The landlord-respondent issued a notice under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy of the petitioner on the ground that the rent for the months of April and May, 2007 were outstanding inasmuch as he does not want the petitioner to continue as a tenant and further stated that Act No. 13 of 1972 does not apply. The landlord-respondent asked the petitioner to vacate the premises within 30 days. The notice dated 11.6.2007 has been served upon the petitioner. When the petitioner has not vacated the premises, J.S.C.C. Suit No. 4 of 2007, Jagdish Prasad Vs. Abdul Gaffar Khan , has been filed. The suit has been dismissed by the Judge, Small Causes Court on the ground that the rent for the months of April and May, 2007 have been paid by the tenant to the landlord which has been acknowledged and, therefore, the ground for giving the notice does not survive. Against the order of the Judge, Small Causes Court, the respondent filed revision being revision no. 487 of 2008, which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 31.5.2013. The revisional authority has held that by issue of notice under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the tenancy has been terminated. Even though the rent has been paid by the tenant and the same has been acknowledged by the landlord and there is no arrear of rent still it is on the desire of the landlord to continue the tenant or not and after the termination of the tenancy, the landlord is entitled to get the premises vacated inasmuch as Act No. 13 of 1972 is admittedly not applicable.

(3.) I do not find any error in the impugned order.