PARMA LAL (DECEASED) AND OTHERS Vs. BANARSI DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's second appeal whose suit for possession by way of ejectment was decreed by the trial court but dismissed in appeal The plaintiff is a landlord and the defendant is tenant under him. the premises are residential-cum-commercial but since they are not situated within the municipal limits with the result that Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, does not apply to the said premises. The plaintiff filed a civil suit for the ejectment of the defendant tenant after terminating his tenancy by way of notice The tenancy in favour of the defendant was created vide rent not Ex. P2(, (Transliteration Ex. P4), This tenancy was for a period of one year from 26 9-1971 to 25-9-1972.' The rent settled was Bs. 458/- per annum. I spite of the fact that the premises were let out to the defendant for one year, the same were not vacated. The landlord issued two notices Ex.'Dl and Ex. D2, dated 17-12-1973 and 7-1-1974 respectively Since the tenancy was terminated by the said notices, the plaintiff filed the present suit for ejectment on 1V-2-1974. The suit was contested inter alia on the ground that there was no valid notice terminating the tenancy. The trial court found that since one year expired by afflux of the time and the plaintiff further being more concious issued notice dated 7-1-1974 for the time of 15 days and according to this notice which is Ex. P.2 produced by the defendant, the tenancy of the defendant was determined otherwise also. The contention of the learned counsel for the defendant that six monthly notice was required to have been issued to the defendant under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act because the defendant manufactured certain goods in the premises in dispute, was repelled on the ground that Transfer of Property Act was not applicable in Haryana. Consequently, plaintiff's suit was decreed on 17-9-1976. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, affirmed the findings of the trial court on all the issues but on the question of notice it was held that six monthly notice under Section Hi 6 of the Transfer of Property Act was required to be served on the defendant and since it was not served, suit as such was not maintainable.

(2.) The learned counsel for the plaintiff appellant submitted that after the expiry of one year period, the tenancy was holding over and, therefore, no notice was required to be served to terminate the tenancy. Reference was made to Bhaiya Ram v. Mahavir Parshad, 1968 C. L. J. 947. He further submitted that in any case, though, the Transfer of Property Act, as such, was not applicable in the State of Haryana, 15 days notice was given vide Ex. d2 and, therefore, the tenancy was validly terminated. The premises were not let out for manufacturing purposes only but it was let out for residential-cum-manufacturing purposes and, therefore, it was wrongly held by the lower court that the six monthly notice was required. It was also argued that since the tenancy has come to an end after the afflux of time, no notice, as such, was necessary. He also referred to Smt. Santi Devi v. Amal Kumar, A. I. R. 1981 S. C. 1550.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find, merit in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant. The tenancy was for one year initially and had cope to an end after the expiry of one year. However, the tenancy was allowed to continue in the premises. 15 daps notice Ex D2 to terminate the tenancy was give on 7-1-1974. Since the Transfer of Property Act, as such, was not applicable to the State of Haryana, strict compliance to the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act was not required. The premises could not be said to be let out for manufacturing purposes only because the defendant-tenant has his residence also therein Thus the view taken by the lower appellate Court in this regard was wrong whereas the trial court has rightly held that the tenancy stood terminated vide notice Ex. D2.