MANOHAR LAL NANEEMAL Vs. MOHANLAL KRISHUNLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent instituted a suit against the appellant for ejectment and arrears of rent. The trial Judge dismissed the suit as regards ejectment but passed a decree for Rs. 80/-, i.e. two months' arrears of rent upto October 31, 1955. The suit was instituted on November 7, 1955. The lower appellate Court has now passed a decree for eviction also.

(2.) In the second appeal it is not disputed that the defendant was in arrears of rent for the months of September and October 1955. The main contention is that no notice was validly served on him under Section 106 of the T. P. Act. It was urged in the plaint that the landlord gave a notice on August 16, 1955, but it was returned to him. He issued a second notice on the 26th September but that too came hack. These two notices were sent by post. The plaintiff then issued a third one which he personally delivered on the 26th September to the defendant's son Baikunth Nath Gupta. It is urged by Shri Inamdar that the service of the third notice was not according to law. Section 106 provides the following modes of service:

(3.) Another case cited to me is Gokulchand v. Shib Charan, 13 Ind Cas 59 (All). There it was held that if a notice for ejectment was delivered by the postal peon to a person other than the defendant at the defendant's "shop" where he did not reside it was not proper service. That decision also does not apply to this case. In the present case the only thing to be seen is whether the suit house in Daulatganj where the third notice was delivered to his son was or was not the tenants' "residence".