HAR SARUP LAL Vs. CHIDDALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGEMENT This is a defendants appeal. The defendant was a tenant of the plaintiff in a house on a rent of Rs. 16/- per month. The tenancy of the defendant began from the 15th of each month and ended on the 14th day of the succeeding month. The defendant had paid Rs. 90/- in all to the plaintiff and rest of the rent for the period starting from 15-11-1956 to 14-4-1958 remained in arrears. The plaintiff thereupon served a notice of demand 7-4-1958 calling upon the defendant to pay the arrears due within one month of the receipt of the notice and also intimated that the plaintiff did not want to keep the defendant as tenant and called upon him to vacate the premises after the expiry of 30 days from the receipt of the notice. The defendant neither paid the rent within the period stipulated nor vacated the premises. The plaintiff then filed the suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears and mesne profits. It is not necessary for the purpose of deciding this appeal to state all the pleas which were raised in defence save the plea that the notice dated 7-4-1958 demanding rent and terminating the tenancy was not valid notice. The trial court found on all other issues against the defendant hut upheld the plea of the defence that the notice terminating the tenancy was not a valid notice. Accordingly the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of arrears and mesne profits was decreed hut the relief for ejectment of the defendant was refused. On appeal by the plaintiff the learned Additional Civil Judge of Bulandshar who heard the appeal reversed the decree of the learned Munsif and granted the relief for ejectment also while affirming the decree for arrears of rent and mesne profits. It was held by the lower appellate court that the notice dated 7-4-1958 was a valid notice. The defendant has now come up in second appeal.

(2.) M .H. Singhal the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant submitted that the notice dated 7-4-1958 was invalid for two reasons viz :

(3.) IN support of this second submission the learned counsel relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Ram Pratap v. Pannalal, 1956 All LJ 787. I do not think the decision in the case cited is of any assistance to the learned counsel. My reading of the ratio decidendi of that case is that far from supporting the contention of the learned counsel militates against it. At page 789 of the Report the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in that case have been noted and at page 790 of the Report the contention has been summarised. It was to the effect that the anomaly which according to the learned counsel arose between Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 3(1)(a) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act could only be removed if the notice, under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was given after the expiry of one month as provided by Section 3(1)(a) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. Their Lordships observed that they did not think that that was a necessary conclusion upon a reading of the provisions of the two Acts together and then they further discussed the merits of the question, it appears to me that the contention that the notice under Sec. 100 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy can only be given after the expiry of the period of 30 days from the receipt of the notice contemplated by Sec. 3(1)(a) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act did not find favour with the learned Judges who decided the case of 1956 All LJ 787 (supra).