RATI RAM JI Vs. MITHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's second appeal in a suit for ejectment. The appellant contested the suit on the grounds, inter alia, that the notice served by the landlord under Section 106 of the T. P. Act prior to the filing of the suit was invalid. The trial Court held that the notice was invalid and dismissed the suit-The lower appellate court reversed this finding and held that the notice was valid. It accordingly allowed the appeal and decreed the suit for the appellant's eviction with costs. He has now come to this court in Second Appeal.

(2.) The only point urged before me is that the notice under Section 106 of the T. P. Act was not a valid notice according to law and therefore the suit was not maintainable. The facts of the case are these. The appellant Rati Ram, a practising Vakil, has been the tenant of the respondent Mithan Lal without interruption since 1938. In 1953 the landlord applied to the District Magistrate for permission under Section 3 of the Control of Rent and Eviction Act to file a suit for the ejectment of the appellant. Permission was refused both by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the Commissioner, but granted by the State Government under Section 7-F of the Act by an order dated 13-4-1955. This Order allowed Ratiram six months to vacate the accommodation and stated that the permission to file a suit would take effect after six months.

(3.) It appears that the appellant did not vacate the house voluntarily. Six months were due to expire on 13-10-1955. The landlord served a notice under Section 106 of the T. P. Act terminating the tenancy which was received by the appellant Rati Ram on 22nd September. It asked him to vacate the house within thirty days of its receipt. The appellant, however, appears to have taken no notice of this warning and on 1-12-1955 the landlord filed his suit for ejectment.