MATROOMAL Vs. MAKUND LAL AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent in respect of a house which is in his occupation. The Appellant is admittedly in occupation of the house on behalf of the Plaintiff Respondent as a tenant. The suit was commenced in 1952 for recovery of arrears of rent and also for ejectment. It was decreed by the trial court on 20 -9 -1952 which gave a decree for arrears of rent but dismissed it for ejectment, on the ground that the ejectment notice was invalid. The Plaintiff appealed from this decree and the appellate court on 30 -3 -1953 upset the decision of the trial court and gave a decree for ejectment as well. Thereafter the Defendant appealed to this Court and on 18 -3 -1955 the case was remanded back to the Munsif with the direction whether a certain notice Ext. I sent by the Plaintiff to the Defendant was sufficient for the purposes of Cl. (a) of S. 3 of the UP Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. Once again the Munsif, to whom the matter was sent back, held that the notice was given and he gave a decree for ejectment on 26 5 -1955. There was an appeal by the Defendant and I am told, the suit had once again to be remanded to the Munsif by an order dated 15 -12 -1955. Finally on 13 -8 1956 the Munsif yet again gave a decree for ejectment. There was an appeal to the District Judge which was dismissed on 15 -1 -1957. It is against this decree that the defendant has come up in second appeal to this Court.

(2.) THE arrears of rent or the rate of rent, is not in dispute before me. The only question that has been canvassed by the learned Advocate for the Appellant is whether the notice Ext. I to which reference has already been made earlier amounted to a notice of demand within the meaning of Cl. (a) of S 3 of the UP Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. This clause reads as follows:

(3.) IN this view of the matter, Ext. 1 on which the Respondent has relied in this case failed to be a notice of demand as it left the choice to the Defendant to postpone payment until his convenience so enabled him. That being so, the present sun for ejectment was not maintainable in view of Cl. (a) of S. 3.