RAJA RAM SONAR Vs. DURGA DEVI AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Judgment shall govern second appeals Nos. 478 of 1968, 286 of 1969 and 349 of 1969 which were connected and heard together. Each of these cases arises out of the suit for ejectment and arrears of rent filed by the landlord. In each case a decree for ejectment and arrears of rent was passed in favour of the landlord against the tenant. An appeal filed by the tenant against that decree passed by the trial Court in each case was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. Hence the tenants have now approached this Court by filing the second appeals.

(2.) I heard the learned counsel for the parties. The common question of law that was raised on behalf of the ap pellants in all the three appeals was that the notice of termination of tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Pro perty Act was pre-mature in view of the provisions contained in the U. P. (Tem porary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. At this place it may be pointed out that the landlord in the suit out of which second appeal No. 478 of 1968 has arisen had sought the ejectment of the tenant on the basis of permission prayed for from the District Magistrate and which was ultimately granted by the Commissioner in revision filed before him though the District Magistrate had ori ginally refused to grant the permission. In the other two suits out of which second appeals Nos. 286 and 349 of 1969 have arisen the landlord had sought ejectment of the defendant on the ground that he made default in payment of ar rears of rent due for more than three months in spite of a notice being served on him under Section 3 (1) (a) of the said Act In these two cases the notice of termination of tenancy under Section 106, Transfer of Property Act was combined with the notice under Section 3 (1) (a) of the Rent Control Act while in the third case the landlord had served the notice under Section 106 prior to obtaining the permission from the Commissioner for filing the suit for ejectment against the tenant.

(3.) IN view of the position stated above there can be no legal objection to a landlord giving a composite notice to his tenant under Section 106, Transfer of Property Act and Section 3 (1) (a) of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act If the tenant pays the 'arrears of rent demanded from him under Section 3 (1) (a) he shall not be liable to ejectment and the notice under Sec. 106 will again remain in fructuous. If. how ever, the arrears of rent are not paid within the prescribed period the tenancy would stand terminated on the expiry of She period prescribed by Section 106 and thereafter the landlord would be compe tent to file a suit for ejectment against (She tenant if the latter does not volun tarily vacate the premises. This view is supported by a string of decisions of this Court as well as of Supreme Court. A reference may be made to Mangilal v. Sugam Chand Rathi, AIR 1965 SC 101; Jagan Nath Prasad v. Smt. Chandrawati, 1969 All LJ 881 = (AIR 1970 All 309 (FB)); Mohd. Ismail v- Nanney Lal, AIR 1970 SC 1919; Shamsher Ali v. Smt. Mohini Jagtiani. 1972 All Lj 331: Ganga Ram v. Smt Phulawati. 1970 All LJ 336 = (AIR 1970 All 446 (FB) and Fannilal v. Smt. Chironja, 1972 All LJ 499.