NABINA CHADHA Vs. USHA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment and decree dated 13-2-2004 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, FTC No. 2, Bhubaneswar in R.F.A. No. 42/02/12/03 confirming the judgment and decree dated 31- 10-2003 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhubaneswar in Title Suit No. 293 of 2003 is assailed in the Second Appeal.

(2.) AT the time of admission of the appeal, the following substantial questions of law have been formulated by this Court. (i) When the defendant was admittedly a tenant under the plaintiff and was paying monthly rent and was a monthly tenant for all practical purposes, whether in the absence of any notice of termination of tenancy, the suit for eviction is maintainable? (ii) Whether by referring to Ext. 9, the agreement of tenancy between the parties which specified that the tenancy was for period of three years after starting from 21-3-1977 and thereafter no further agreement has been executed but the defendant was allowed to continue with the consent of the landlord on payment of monthly rent till filing of the suit and even thereafter, the learned Courts below are justified to hold that the tenancy had been terminated by efflux of time and no notice u/S. 106 of the T.P. Act is required? (iii) When the specific plea of the plaintiff that the defendant was a defaulter in payment of rent and paid the rent at a time @ Rs. 500 p.m. for 24 months and was duly accepted by the plaintiff, which itself shows that the relationship between the parties as landlord and tenant subsisted till the filing of the suit, whether the learned Courts below were correct in saying that there was no tenancy subsisting in order to terminate the same? (iv) When the plaintiff had filed Money Suit No. 220/93 for realization of arrear rent for the period after the filing of the suit that itself establishes the fact that the plaintiff accept the defendant as a monthly tenant and therefore in the absence of termination of tenancy, the suit for eviction could not have been held maintainable by the Courts below?

(3.) IN the case of Mahindra and Mahindra v. Union of INdia and another, AIR 1979 SC 798 the Supreme Court observed as follows:-