AKHILESH PURWAR Vs. CHATURBHUJ AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Rishikesh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the revisionists and Sri K.K.Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) It is not disputed between the parties that the Act No.13 of 1972 is not applicable in the present dispute. The tenancy was in the name of M/s. Pitron Communication Private Limited. Sri Akhilesh Purwar, who was the Director of the Company was staying in the premises although the said premise was let out to the Company and a notice determining the tenancy was served on 1.9.2011. The service of notice has also been proved upon Sri Akhilesh Purwar. Since the Rent Control Act is not applicable the provisions of Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act are applicable which requires only one month's notice and the notice has been accepted and after one month the tenancy stood determined.

(3.) Sri Rishikesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionists submits that the tenancy was in the name of the Company whereas the notice was served upon Sri Akhilesh Purwal in his individual capacity and, therefore, it is not a notice under Sec. 106 of the Act and, therefore, the suit itself was not maintainable. He has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Punjab National Bank Vs. M/s. Lakshmi Industrial and Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. and others, reported in AIR 2001 Allahabad 28 wherein it has been held that the Company is a juristic person and different from its members and the Company can sue and be sued in its own name. Relying on the aforesaid decision, Mr. Tripathi, Advocate submits that since the company was the tenant, the notice upon the Director of the Company is not sufficient notice on the tenant. He has further relied upon another judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Bacha F. Guzdar, Bombay Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay reported in AIR 1955 SC 74 . In the aforesaid case the dispute arose under the Income Tax Act wherein similar view has been taken that the Company is a juristic person and can sue and be sued in its own name.