(1.) The petitioners are the landlords and sought ejectment of their tenants-respondents 1 and 2, on the ground of personal necessity, besides other grounds. The Rent Controller by an order dated 6th of May, 1972, found that the landlords needed the premises for their own use and on this ground alone ordered ejectment of the tenants and gave them three months time to vacate. The tenants filed an appeal and the Appellate Authority endorsed the finding of the Rent Controller that the landlords needed the premises for their personal use, but accepted the appeal on the sole ground that no application for ejectment was competent as the landlords had failed to serve notice on the tenants under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter called the 'Act') with the result that the order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller was set aside. Against the aforesaid decision of the Appellate Authority, the landlords came to this Court in revision.
(2.) Whether it is necessary to serve notice under Section 106 of the Act or not before filing an application for ejectment under the Rent Control Act, this matter has been authoritatively decided by the Supreme Court in V. Dhanapal Chettiar v. Yesodai Ammal, 1979 AIR(SC) 1745 and it has been held that for filing ejectment application under the State Rent Control Acts, it is not necessary to issue notice under Section 106 of the Act. In view of this Supreme Court decision, the Appellate Authority was in error in accepting the appeal on the ground that no notice was served on the tenants. Accordingly the decision of the Appellate Authority on this point is reversed.
(3.) The next point which arises for consideration is whether the landlords have been able to show their bona fide requirement. This matter has been dealt with by both the Courts below on the basis of evidence on the record and no infirmity has been pointed out and accordingly, I affirm the finding of the Courts below that the landlords need the premises for their personal use.