K MUKTA ASHOK KHANKHOJE Vs. NAMDEORAO TUKARAM KHUTAPHALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present respondent, who is the original plaintiff, brought the Civil suit No. 316/2000 before the Small Causes Court, Nagpur for ejectment against the present revision petitioner, who is the original defendant, on the ground of bona fide need and non user of the premises for the purpose for which they were let out, under the provisions of s. 16 (1) (g) and (n) of maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.

(2.) BEFORE the institution of suit the plaintiff/respondent had given a notice dated 6. 7. 2000 terminating the tenancy of the defendant/revision petitioner w. e. f. 31. 8. 2000. In January and April, 2001 the plaintiff/ respondent accepted the amounts from the defendant/revision petitioner which according to defendant/ revision petitioner were paid towards the rent and according to plaintiff/ respondent the same were towards the damages for use and occupation. The defendant/ revision petitioner filed an application before the Small Causes Court for rejection of plaint or dismissal of suit on the ground that the plaintiff/respondent had accepted the rent after the service of notice terminating the tenancy of the defendant and the acceptance of rent was a waiver of notice of termination of tenancy on his part. This application was rejected by the Small Causes Court on the ground that the notice of termination of tenancy was not necessary for seeking eviction under s. 16 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. This rejection is impugned in the present revision.

(3.) IN this revision the learned Counsel for the defendant/revision petitioner raised the point that even in the cases of eviction under the provisions of s. 16 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act the tenancy has to be terminated first by issuing a notice under s. 106 of the Transfer of property Act and as such the notice terminating the tenancy is essential.