KAILASH SARAN Vs. MURLI MANOHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case has been referred to us by a learned Single Judge who was of the opinion that an important question of law regarding the interpretation of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and the validity of the notice given under the section was involved in that case. On the one hand, it was argued before him on behalf of the tenant that the Full Bench decision of this Court in Bradley v. Atkinson, ILR 7 All. 894, was in his favour, but it was contended on behalf of the landlord that the decision was contrary to a number of decisions of the English courts. This question was considered important by the learned Single Judge and the matter was, therefore, referred as aforesaid to a Division Bench.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this case may be stated very shortly. The appellant was a tenant at Rs. 9/- per month of a shop situate in Mastonganj at Rampur. The plaintiffs served a notice upon him demanding arrears of rent from the 1st of April, 1965 to 31st July, 1965. In the notice it was alleged that he was a habitual defaulter. It was then said as translated by the lower appellate courts :-

(3.) After the service of this notice which was served on the defendant on the 10th August, 1965, the defendant failed to pay he arrears demanded. The present suit for ejectment was then filed. The defendant in his written statement in paragraph 4 contended that no notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating his tenancy had been given and that the only notice dated the 9th August, 1965 which was served on him was a notice demanding arrears of rent and therefore, the suit for ejectment could not be decreed. The learned Munsif who tried the case, held that the notice given by the landlord merely demanded arrears of rent and threatened the defendant with the consequences that if the arrears were not paid within one month from the date of the notice, he would be liable to ejectment and that the landlord will then terminate his tenancy. This notice did not amount to the termination of the tenancy and, therefore, dismissed the prayer for ejectment but decreed the suit for arrears of rent. Against that decree the plaintiff landlord filed an appeal which was heared by the District Judge of Rampur. The learned District Judge, after quoting the relevant words of the notice as above, was of the opinion that the tending of the learned Munsif was not correct and he thought that the plaintiff had clearly mentioned that unless the money was paid within one month, tenancy would be terminated and a suit would be filed. That means that he had clearly shown his intention to file a suit for ejectment and this amounted to terminattion of tenancy. For this proposition, he relied upon the case of Tika Ram v. Parkash Chand,1966 AllLJ 1016. That was a case decided by a learned Single Judge of this Court. In that case the notice which had been given by the landlord had been translated as follows :-