KAILASH NARAIN SINGH Vs. BEERBAL YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at length.

(2.) The main point urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the notice by the landlord given to petitioner-tenant was not in accordance with the requirements of Sec. 20 (2) (a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction), Act No. 13 of 1972. The notice in question which has been marked paper 7-C has been placed before this Court. It is not disputed by the learned Counsel that a notice under Sec. 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, can be combined with the notice required to be given under Sec. 20 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Learned Counsel submitted that the notice vide paper 7-C does not contain a demand in clear terms for payment of arrears of rent within 30 days as required under Sec. 20 (2) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. In support of this contention reliance is placed on a decision of this Court reported in Allahabad Rent Cases, 1983 (1), page 85, wherein it was held that notice under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and the notice under Sec. 20 (2) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, could be combined though the requirement of each Sec. must be separately and distinctly fulfilled. With respect, I agree with the observations made in the aforesaid decision. The question which arises for consideration in this case is whether the notice under paper 7-C contains a clearcut demand without leaving the tenant guessing as to whether the said notice is simply a notice of termination simpliciter or it also contains a clearcut demand for payment of arrears of rent have carefully examined the contention of the notice. It is clearly stated therein that within 30 days of receipt of the notice, the petitioner shall vacate the premises, hand-over vacant possession to the landlord and pay the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 3300.00 with interest and arrears of electricity charges amounting to Rs. 440.00. The finding of the learned Additional District Judge is that the rent payable per month was Rs. 300.00 and as such Rs. 3300.00 represents rent due for more than 4 months. On consideration, therefore, I agree with the learned Additional District Judge that the notice under paper 7-C shows a clearcut demand for payment of arrears of rent within 30 days and it is also in complaince with the requirements of Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

(3.) Learned Counsel further urged that in SCC Suit No. 576 of 1983, between the same parties the claim of the landlord in that suit against the present petitioner for recovery of sums alleged to be due for supply of milk and curd, had been disbelieved and the court had clearly found that the landlord never supplied any milk and that photostat copies of counter-foils of cheques filed in that suit did not relate to payment towards milk and curd charges, and therefore, in the present suit it was not open to the learned Additional District Judge to re-determine the matter and hold that the said cheques were payments made for milk and curd supplied. The learned trial judge has in his judgment noticed that in the previous SCC. Suit only photo-copies of the counter-foils had been filed by the petitioner while in the present suit the original counterfoils were filed and the originals on the reverse side disclosed statements of accounts, relating to milk. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the judgment of the trial court can be assailed on this ground as his finding in this regard in effect is that the cheques in question were not towards payment of rent.