SATYANARAYA N Vs. PUSU LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the defendants, who have lost in both the courts below. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

(2.) THE facts giving rise to filing of the appeal briefly is the owner of Kachcha stated are that the plaintiff house situate on plot No.290 admeasuring area 0.26 acre situate at village Badi Kheri, Tahsil and District Mandla. Admittedly, the provisions of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 do not apply to the house in question. The aforesaid house was let out to defendants on monthly rent of Rs.50/-. The tenancy commenced from 17 t h day of month as per English calender. The defendant was placed in premises as tenant on 17.4.1991. A notice dated 12.10.1983 (Ex.P/1) demanding arrears of rent was sent to the defendants and tenancy of the defendants was terminated from 17.11.1983. Thereafter, on 1.12.1983 the suit seeking the relief of possession was filed.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submitted that the notice (Ex.P/1) is not in accordance with Section 106 of the Act. While inviting the attention of this Court to paras 10 and 11 of the notice, it was submitted that tenancy of the defendant has been terminated forthwith without giving 15 days notice, as required under Section 106 of the Act. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the appellant on the decision of Privy Council reported in Gooderham and Wort, Ltd. Vs. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, A.I.R. 1949 Privy Council 90.