STATE OF U P Vs. RAM RANI JAIWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT JSCC revision has been filed questioning the validity of judgment and decree dated 09. 05. 2008 passed by Additional District Judge/judge Small Cause Court, Court No. 3, Bareilly in suit No. 04 of 2002 between Smt. Ram Rani Jaiswal and the State of U. P. and others.

(2.) BRIEF background of the case is that the revisionist-defendants entered into an agreement with effect from 01. 10. 1979 for a period of three years on monthly rent of Rs. 1000/- in respect of premises in question situated at 35-U/6, Rampur Garden, Civil Lines, Bareilly. After expiry of the lease period, the revisionist-defendants continued their possession as tenants in the premises on month to month tenancy basis. An application was filed by the landlord under Section 21 (8) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, for enhancement of rent. Aforesaid application was allowed on 10. 10. 1986, enhancing the rent to the tune of Rs. 1635/- per month, and thereafter enhanced rent was paid. Thereafter, again an application was moved under Section 21 (8) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Said application was allowed on 26. 08. 1988 and the rent was fixed at Rs. 3310/- per month with effect from 01. 03. 1992. The appeal preferred by the defendant-revisionists preferred against the said order was dismissed by IIIrd Additional District Judge, Bareilly on 17. 11. 1999. the said order attained finality. Thereafter, JSCC revision in question was filed after terminating tenancy by giving notice dated 1. 05. 2001 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Said notice was replied on 06. 06. 2001. The suit was contested by contending that entire dues as claimed by the plaintiff-respondent was paid and revisionist-defendant was not surviving, and in this background, suit in question cannot be decreed. After evidence had been led by both sides, suit was decreed. At this juncture present revision has been filed. Sri Devi Prasad Mishra, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the defendant-revisionists, contended with vehemence that in the present case entire amount in question has been paid; the provisions of Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act were attracted, as such benefit of the said section ought to have been extended and the eviction ought to have been avoided, and further amount in question had already been paid, as such without assigning any reason amount in question could not have been awarded, as has been done in the present case. Countering the said submission, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Advocate, appearing for the plaintiff-respondent, contended with vehemence that in the present case, the provisions of Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act are not at all attracted, as the lease period had already expired and the defendant-revisionists had been holding the premises in question on monthly tenancy basis, as such by simpliciter notice to quit under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, tenancy has been terminated, as such there is no occasion to interfere with the impugned order, and as far as money decree is concerned, the same is conditional one, and in this background, revision is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) THE question to be adverted to is as to whether in the facts of the case benefit of Section 114 of Transfer Property Act could have been extended to the petitioner or not. In order to appreciate the above contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, it would be convenient to have a look to the relevant provisions of the Transfer of property Act. Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act runs as under: "in the absence of a contract or local law or usage to the contrary, a lease of immovable property for agricultural or manufacturing purpose shall be deemed to be a lease from year to year, terminable on the part of either lessor or lessee, by six month's notice expiring with the end of a year of the tenancy; and a lease of immovable property for any other purpose shall be deemed to be a lease from month to month, terminable on the part of either lessor or lessee, by fifteen days' notice expiring with the end of a month of the tenancy. Every notice under this section must be in writing signed by or on behalf of the person giving it and either be sent by post to the party who is intended to be bound by it or be tendered or delivered personally to such party or to one of his family or servants, at his residence or (if such tender or deliver is not practicable) affixed to a conspicuous part of the property. "