RAJENDRA KUMAR Vs. SMT. MAYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Defendant tenant's appeal from the judgment and decree of the Additional Civil Judge of Kanpur who by reversing the decree of the court of first instance in appeal decreed the Plaintiff -Respondent's suit for ejectment of the Defendant -Appellant from the premises in suit and for recovery of a small sum as arrears of rent.

(2.) THE only point which has been raised by Sri S.C. Budhwar, Learned Counsel for the Defendant -Appellant, is that the notice served by the Plaintiff as landlady upon the Defendant as tenant purporting to be Under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was invalid and ineffective inasmuch as it did not clearly and unambiguously terminate the tenancy. I think the notice in question a copy of which is Ext. 1 on record, with sufficient clarity and precision shows that the legal relationship of the landlady and tenant was to be ended between the parties on the expiry of 30 days from the date of service of that notice.

(3.) SRI Budhwar, Learned Counsel for the Defendant Appellant, contended that the only demand which has been made in the notice is for the delivery of possession from the Defendant tenant on the expiry of 30 days and there is complete absence of any expression or words that the tenancy was being terminated or that the relationship of landlady and tenant was to cease, __thus the notice did not fulfil the requirement of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.