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 that 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 that decision was contrary to a number of decisions of the English court?. 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 Mestonganj 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 court:

(3.) IN view of the above discussion the Full Bench case of Bradley v. Atkinson, ILR 7 All. 898 does not appear to us to have any application to the facts of this case. But since Learned Counsel for the Appellant strongly re -lied on it and the learned Single Judge who made the reference to this Court, had particularly referred to it we think it necessary to discuss that Full Bench case also. That was a case in which a notice Under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, as it then stood, came up for consideration. The relevant words of the notice were: