JAMIR AHMAD Vs. MADHAWANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's appeal, who is aggrieved by the decree directing his ejectment from the shops in dispute as also for recovery of arrears of rent and damages passed by the trial court and affirmed by the lower appellate court.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the decree of the courts below only in so far as it relates to the ejectment of the appellant. His submission in this regard is that the notice (Ext. 1) which was a combined notice demanding arrears of rent and terminating the tenancy of the defendant- appellant, was given only by two out of three lessors and could not, consequently, validly terminate his tenancy. As such, no decree for his ejectment from the shops could be passed.

(3.) IN Sri Ram v. Gopal Dass, (AIR 1955 NUC (All) 2699), a learned Single Judge of this Court deciding a case at Lucknow took the view that where the names of 8 out of 9 co-owners of a house were only mentioned in the notice sent by a lawyer under S.106 of the T.P. Act determining the tenancy and the 9th co-owner joined in the array of plaintiffs, the notice terminating the tenancy was valid. IN that case the 9th owner, apart from joining in the array of the plaintiffs also entered the witness box to prove that the notice sent by the lawyer was sent on his instruction and was on his behalf also. IN Misri Lal v. Ram Gopal (1965 All WR (HC) 753 : (1966 All LJ 35), S.S. Dhavan, J. upheld the validity of a notice which was signed by one of the landlords whereas it should have been on behalf of both. IN that case, the notice purported to be on behalf of both the landlords though signed by only one of them. Added to it was the circumstance that both the landlords had signed the plaint and there was a joint statement therein that they had served on the defendant a notice terminating his tenancy. To quote the words of the learned Judge : "Where a notice of termination though signed by one of the joint owners, says that it was being sent on behalf of all of them, and subsequently, all of them state, in the plaint in the suit for ejectment, that they sent a notice of termination. it will be presumed that the statement in the notice is correct, and the onus will be on the tenant to prove that the notice was not on behalf of all the joint owners."