MOHAMMAD AFZAL Vs. RAMESH KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Om Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent. Petitioner is a tenant. His tenancy is said to have been terminated vide notice dated 4.3.2005 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (in short TP Act) whereupon the respondent landlord instituted SCC Suit No. 8 of 2005 for his eviction. The suit has been decreed by the Courts below holding that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable to the shop in dispute and that the notice was a valid notice terminating the tenancy of the petitioner.

(2.) The sole ground on which the writ petition has been filed is that notice determining tenancy was invalid as only 15 days notice was given whereas according to U.P. Amendment to Section 106 of the TP Act a notice of 30 days is mandatory.

(3.) In reply to the above Sri Pandey submits that the U.P. Amendment is of the year 1954. The Transfer of Property Act has been amended in 2002 which provides for 15 days notice for determining the month to month tenancy. Therefore, the U.P. Amendment of 1954 is of no significance and there is no corresponding State amendment.