PARSURAM MISHRA Vs. PADMALOCHAN NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant has filed this appeal against a confirming decision.

(2.) Suit was filed for eviction from the disputed house and for realisation of arrear house rent from the month of December, 1995. It is not disputed that the defendant-appellant was a tenant under the plaintiff-respondent in respect of the disputed, house. After issuing notice under Section 106 of the TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 (in short, the T.P. Act') suit was filed. The defendant in his written statement pleaded that he was not a monthly tenant but he was a yearly tenant and the notice issued by the plaintiff was invalid.

(3.) The trial Court found that the defendant was a monthly tenant and the tenancy was validly terminated by issuing appropriate notice. It was found that the defendant had not paid rent and the plaintiff was entitled to recover the rent at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month from 1st December, 1995. The said decision having been confirmed in appeal, the present appeal has been filed.