RIYASAT ALI KHAN Vs. MIRZA WAHID BEG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a tenant's second appeal from the concurrent decisions of the courts below decreeing the plaintiff respondents suit for his ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent from him.

(2.) THE appellant Riyasat AH Khan was a tenant of a house in Moradabad of which the plaintiff respondent Mirza Wahid Beg is the Owner and landlord. THE latter filed a suit for his ejectment on the ground that he had illegally sub-let a portion of the house and also failed to pay arrears of rent within one month of receiving a notice of demand. Both the courts below rejected the allegation of sub-letting, but have held that the appellant had not paid rent for more than three months in spite of demand. THE appellant: has come to this court in second appeal.

(3.) THE confusion about the scope Section 8. 114 has been caused by Section 3 (1) (a) of the U. P. Control of Bent and Eviction Act which enjoins in effect that no suit for the ejectment of the tenant can be filed without the permission of the District Magistrate unless he has failed to pay three months rent in spite of demand. This provision has created the impression that the landlord relying on Section 3 (1) (a) invokes his right to forfeit the tenancy. That is not so. He flies the suit for ejectment in the exercise of his right, under the ordinary law of landlord and tenant, to terminate a tenancy which was determinable by either side by notice of one month or whatever the period. Section 3 (1) (a) merely imposes a bar on this right. When the tenant falls to pay three months' rent in spite of a notice of demand this bar is removed. THEreupon the landlord determines the tenancy by a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer or Property Act. He does not invoke any forfeiture clause because there is none to invoke.