VIJAYA NIGAM Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE KANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SANJAY Misra, J. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing the judgment and order dated 16-4-1990 passed by the Court of Judge Small Causes Kanpur Nagar in S. C. C. Suit No. 598 of 1983 (Smt. Vijaya Nigam v. Sudama Kumar) whereby the suit has been dismissed for ejectment of the defendants and allowed for recovery of arrears of rent and the judgment and order dated 12-4-1993 passed by the Xth Additional District Judge Kanpur in S. C. C. Revision No. 99 of 1990 (Smt. Vijaya Nigam v. Sudama Kumar) whereby the revision of the petitioner has been dismissed.

(2.) HEARD Sri Avinash Swaroop learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. The petitioner who claims herself to be owner and landlord of the shop No. 3 situate in Premises No. 62/3 Block 7, Govind Nagar Kanpur filed the suit on the allegations that the shop was constructed in the year 1978 and was given on a rent of Rs. 225 per month to the respondent No. 3 for a period of 11 months by a written agreement. The period of tenancy was extended by subsequent agreements of 11 months each. The period of the last agreement came to an end on 30-4-1983 where after the petitioner sent a notice dated 7-5-1983 to quit which was received by the respondent No. 3 on 16-5-1983. The tenancy is alleged to have been terminated upon the expiry of thirty days from the date of service of notice.

(3.) THE argument on behalf of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act served by the petitioner upon the tenant was valid and legal and both the Courts below have committed error in law in holding that the notice was invalid and therefore, the tenancy was not terminated. It is this question alone which has been canvassed by the learned Counsel for the parties.