TANTULAL BIHARILAL PARWAR Vs. PURSHOTTAM SHANKARRAM PUROHIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision application under Section 25 of the Divisional Small Causes Courts Act, ordinarily a Single Bench matter has been referred to a Division Bench for decision by the learned Single Judge Cinwala, J., as in his opinion it involves the following questions of general importance :-

(2.) The applicant (original-plaintiff) has let out his block of two rooms in Itwari, Nagpur to the non-applicant (original defendant) on a monthly rent of Rs. 20. After obtaining requite permission from the Controller, in terms of clause 13(3) of the House Rent Control Order, a quit notice as required by Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was issued. The notice was first sent at the residential address and as it returned unserved with an endorsement that the non-applicant was not found at the house, another notice was sent at his office address. Both the notice were sent by registered post. Second notice also returned unserved. The applicant then served the notice by affixing its copy on the door of the house of the non-applicant in presence of two witnesses. After expiry of the requisite period, a civil suit for eviction and other relief was instituted in the Court of Small Causes. The non-applicant contended that the notice was not validly served and consequently the suit was dismissed. The present revision is direct against the said judgement and decree.

(3.) Two fold submissions are made of behalf of the applicant. The first in that no notice was really necessary in view of the fact that permission from the House Rent Controller was obtained. Second is that the notice was validly served. We will examine the first point in some detail as it is decisive of the fate of the case. It is essentially founded the observations made in the case of V. Dhanpal Chettior v. Yasoda Ammal, 1979 AIR(SC) 1745. This is a decision dealing with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960. Question arose as to whether for getting decree for ejectment under the said Act was it first necessary to terminate the tenancy by giving notice under Section 106, Transfer of Property Act. Madras High Court came to the conclusion that it was not. Agreeing with this view and referring to various decisions of various High Courts and so also some previous decision of the Supreme Court it is observed : -