NATHABHAI MAGANBHAI PATEL Vs. RUKMINIBAI VITHAL PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above appeals arose from a common judgment and decree passed by the Joint District Judge, Thane, in Civil Appeal No. 181 of 1985 and Civil Appeal No. 132 of 1985 on 29th November 1985. Since common question of law arises in both the appeals between the same parties, both the appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that the respondent herein is the landlady and appellant is a tenant in respect of two rooms situated in a house comprising of four rooms belonging to the respondent. The appellant was served with notice dated 7th October 1982 by the respondent terminating his tenancy in respect of both the rooms and was asked to deliver vacant possession thereof alongwith payment of arrears of rent. The appellant having failed to comply with the said notice, the respondent filed two suits, namely Civil Suit No. 10 of 1983 in respect of Room No. 2 and Civil Suit No. 11 of 1983 in respect of Room No. 3 for eviction of the appellant from the suit premises as well as for arrears of rent. The suit was sought to be resisted by the appellant on the ground that the appellant had incurred certain expenditure on account of repairs to the premises and that there was an agreement between the parties to allow the appellant to continue to reside in the premises. It was also contended by the appellant that the tenancy of the appellant was not properly terminated. The trial Court after hearing both the parties decreed both the suits by its judgment and decree dated 3rd May 1985. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeals against the decree of eviction in both the suits and the same were dismissed by the impugned orders and decrees.

(3.) THE only point for consideration which is sought to be raised in the present second appeal is whether there was valid termination of tenancy of the appellant by the respondent prior to the institution of the suit for eviction of the appellant. The contention of Shri Kankaria, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant is that though initially there were two different leases created in favour of the appellant in respect of each of the rooms, subsequently by an agreement executed in the year 1967 between the parties one single tenancy was created in respect of both the rooms and therefore, there was no proper and valid notice terminating the joint tenancy in respect of both the rooms. According to the learned Advocate notices which were served on the appellant in October 1982 do not lawfully terminate the joint tenancy of the appellant in respect of both the rooms, since the notices were sent on the presumption that there were two independent leases in respect of each of the two rooms. Shri Kale, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent on the other hand submitted that the fact that there are two distinct and separate leases have been established by evidence on record and both the courts below after analysing the entire evidence have come to the conclusion that there were two distinct and separate leases in respect of each of the two rooms and it is not open for the appellant to contend that the respondent could not have served notices on the assumption that there were two independent leases in respect of each of the two rooms.