ROSHAN AND ANOTHER Vs. PURSHOTTAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a tenants second appeal from the decree of the Ist Additional Civil Judge Agra confirming the decree for his ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent from him. The appellants were joint tenants of the accommodation in dispute and fell into arrears of rent. The landlord served a notice which has become familiar in this State as a combined notice of demand under S. 3(1)(a) of the U.P. control of Rent and Eviction Act and termination of tenancy under S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The notice itself was addressed to both the tenants (the assailants before me) but the envelope was addressed to one of them. He refused to accept it and it was returned by the post-office to the landlord who then filed the present suit for ejectment and recovery of rent.

(2.) THE Defendants resisted the suit and denied that they had made any default in payment of rent. They also placed that the notice terminating the tenancy was invalid.

(3.) ONLY one argument was advanced in support of this appeal - namely, that the notice terminating the tenancy was invalid as the envelop was addressed to one of the joint tenants. It was conceded that the notice itself, was addressed to both. The address on the envelope is no part of the notice but only a direction to the post-office to deliver the letter to a particular person. I am doubtful whether the post-office would accept a registered letter addressed simultaneously to two different persons as this may create trouble for them if the two addressees become rival claimants for the letter. But even if the post-office do accept an envelop for delivery, the address on it is only a direction to them. The real notice is inside the envelop. I would therefore hold that a notice calling upon two joint tenants to suit but sent to the address of one of them is in law a notice addressed to both.