R N SRIVASTAVA Vs. GHAN SHYAM DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision arising out of a small cause suit for recovery of arrears of rent. The applicant was a tenant in an accommodation which belonged to Ghan Shyam Das, opposite party No. 1. The rent for July, August, September and October, 1961, not having been paid, Ghan Shyam Das filed the suit for the recovery of arrears of rent against the applicant Rule N. Srivastava and also against Amminuddin Siddiqi, opposite party No. 2, who is said to be a sub-tenant in the same accommodation. The trial Court dismissed the suit, but it was decreed in revision by the Additional District Judge, Allahabad.

(2.) The point involved in the case is a simple one. The applicant's contention is that when he vacated the house on 1st July, 1961, he gave notice under Clause (a) of Subsection (1) of Section 7 of the U. P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act to the District Magistrate. No notice for the determination of the tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was, however, given to the landlord with the result that the landlord treated the tenancy of the present applicant still subsisting. It was on that basis that he filed the suit for recovery of arrears of rent.

(3.) The contention on behalf of the applicant was that it is Section 7 (1) of the Control of Rent and Eviction Act which lays down the law for determination of a lease at the instance of the tenant and that the applicant having given this notice to the District Magistrate, his tenancy should be deemed to have been determined in accordance with law. This contention is, however, not correct. Section 7 (1) of the Control of Rent and Eviction Act has nothing to do with the determination of a lease. It continues to be governed by the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. It has been held in number of cases, though in connection with the application of Section 3 of the Control of Rent and Eviction Act, that even though the landlord may be entitled to file a suit for the ejectment of the tenant under any one of the Clauses (a) to (g) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the aforesaid Act, he will have to determine the lease under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act first. On the same reasoning even the tenant, who wants to vacate the premises, will have to determine the lease in accordance with the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, by giving 30 days' notice to the landlord, and also vacating the accommodation within the same period. Even sending a copy of the letter which the tenant may have addressed to the District Magistrate to the landlord would not be enough. If notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is not given, then, even though the District Magistrate may have been intimated under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Control of Rent and Eviction Act that the premises have been vacated, the tenancy will continue to subsist in law, and the tenant will consequently be liable for the payment of rent. In this case there was also another reason why the tenancy could not be said to have been determined. The premises were sub-let by the applicant and the sub-tenant has continued to be in possession of the premises sub-let to him.