MURARI LAL AGARWAL Vs. MITHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiff's appeal of arising out of a suit for ejectment of the tenant from three shops and for arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation. The trial court decreed the plain tiff's suit for ejectment as well as for arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation. On appeal filed by the defendant, the lower ap pellate court set aside the decree so far as it related to ejectment and modified the decree for money by reducing the amount on the finding that the rent of one of the shops was not Rs. 8.00 but Rs. 7.00. The tenant has filed no appeal. The landlord has come up in appeal against the appellate court's decree.

(2.) THE appellate court has held that the tenant was in default in pay ment of arrears of rent within the meaning of section 3 of the U. P. (Tem porary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act and accordingly the suit was maintainable. It has, however, dismissed the suit for ejectment on the ground that the notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act directing the tenant to quit was invalid. The defendant was tenant of three shops of the plaintiff. The tenancies were separately created. Through the notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act the Landlord sought to terminate the tenancy of all these three shops. Accor ding to the court below, the three tenancies could not be terminated by a single notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.

(3.) NO appeal has been filed by the tenant challenging the decree for money. It is thus established that more than four months rent was due on the date of the notice in respect of each of the three shops. The amount of Rs. 120.00 tendered by the tenant within one month of the notice was not sufficient to clear the arrears of rent in respect of any of the three shops. Even the tender of Rs. 120.00 made by the tenant was in respect of any specific tenancy. In the written statement the tenant himself had stated that it was sent towards the rent due in respect of the three tenancies. But even if it is treated to be in respect of any of the three shops as the rent due on the date of the notice, the amount in respect of any of the three shops was for the period of more than three years and the crediting of this amount towards the rent due in respect of any of the three tenancies could not be sufficient to bar the maintain ability of the suit in respect of any of the three shops.