SYED MOHD IBNE ALI Vs. ZANAB BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's appeal and it arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondents for eject ment as well as for recovery of rent and damages. The allegations of the plain tiff-respondents were that defendant-ap pellant was tenant of the house in suit paying a monthly rent of Rs. 25.00. Per mission under Section 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act had been obtained on 1'Oth Sep tember. 1962 by the original landlord who was plaintiff in the suit The landlord needed the house for his personal resi dence and on that account he had obtained permission. The defendant was given a notice of ejectment on 1st of Octo ber, 1962, but he did not vacate. There after again a notice on 5th February. 1964' for ejectment was given which was served upon the defendant on 6th February. 1964- The defendant, however, did not vacate the premises. On these allegations the suit for ejectment as well as for arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 72.50 n.p. to gether with damages for use and occu pation at Rs. 400.00 was filed. The plain tiff died during the pendency of the suit His heirs were duly brought on record who are now respondents in this case. The suit was contested on the grounds which gave rise to the following issues:-

(2.) THREE points were urged before me. The first point was that actually notice for ejectment relied upon in the plaint was of 1962 and, therefore, the Civil Judge was not right in holding that notice of 1964 was a valid notice of eject ment. The other contention was that notice for ejectment.of 1964 also was in valid as nowhere intention to terminate the tenancy appeared. The third point was that permission under Section 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act did n9t hold good inas much as once the original landlord died and the need was personal his heirs could not take advantage of the same.

(3.) COMING to the second point was find that Exhibit 5 is the notice dated 5tti February. 1964. In this notice it is clearly mentioned that "Mera Muvakkil aapko kirayadar naheen rakhna chahta hal Kiunke usko apne rahayas ke hetu makan ki avashyakta haL Lihaza notice miadf 30 yom aapko di iati hai ki tareekh tamH hone notice se andar 30 yomtak app makan ka takhlia kar den aur makan par kabza mere Muvakkil ko de den. Maiid bari 14-8-1962 se aapne, mere muvakkil ko eK habba bhi naheen ada kiva chunacha kul rakam pakaya kiraya ta takhlia makan mere Muvakkil ko ada kar dijiyae varna bad gujarne mivad notice aapke khilal babat takhlia makan. va 'iar bakavs kiraya dava adalat majaz men dakhil karega aur aap mere Muvakkil Ke jumla harza va Kharcha ke iimmedar hoonge.a In my. view this phrase clearly shows intention to terminate the tenancy. In Mangi Lal y. Sugan Chand. AIR 1965 SC 101 their Lordships of the Supreme Court were also concerned with interpretation of a notice of termination. There as we a similar ground was taken, namely, that the notice did not purport to determine the tenancy. Their Lordships observed at page 104 "it has to be observed that the plaintiffs after requiring the defendant to pay the rental arrears due UP to the end of March, 1959 within one month from the date of service of the notice, proceed ed to say falling which suit for ejectment will be filed (I have underlined these portions as these were stressed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. These recitals clearly indicate the intention of the landlord to terminate the tenancy i the defendant." The notice Exhibit 5 question, In my view, clearly terminates fine tenancy of the defendant and it can not be said to be invalid. This point also, therefore, has no substance.