VINOD KUMAR Vs. ARYA SAMAJ MANDIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(2.) The question in the present case is whether the petitioner is entitled for benefit of Sec. 114 of the Transfer of Property Act. The suit property is exempted from the operation of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The tenancy of the petitioner was determined by a valid notice dated 1.6.1999 received by him on 5.6.1999. The plea taken by the tenant is that he had deposited the dues of rent in the present suit and, therefore, was entitled for benefit of Sec. 114 of the Transfer of Property Act. It was held by the Court below that the tenancy was not determined under Sec. 111 (g) of the Act by forfeiture rather it was a simpliciter notice under Sec. 106 of Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the protection granted under Sec. 114 cannot be given to the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner was granted time to prepare the matter to address on the applicability of Sec. 114 of the Transfer of Property Act. However he did not extend any argument on this issue.