CHUNI LAL OM PARKASH Vs. INDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition for revision against the order of the Appellate Authority affirming on appeal the decision of the Rent Controller ordering eviction of the tenant.

(2.) THE Rent Controller ordered the eviction on the ground that the landlord required the premises for his personal use. The decision of the Rent Controller on this ground was affirmed on appeal by the Appellate Authority. Besides this there was another controversy both before the Rent Controller and the Appellate authority, namely, that there was no valid notice under Section 106 of the transfer of Property Act (hereinafter called the Act), and, therefore, the landlord's application was liable to dismissal.

(3.) SO far as the facts go there is no dispute. A notice under Section 106 of the Act was duly issued by the landlord. After that notice an application for ejectment of the tenant was made on ground of personal necessity. That application was got dismissed by the landlord. Thereafter, the landlord waited for a year and five months and then filed the present application for eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal necessity and also that the tenant had violated the terms of the lease. The tenant contested the application and also took the plea that there being no valid notice under S. 106 of the Act, the application for eviction was bound to fail. The Rent Controller observed that in terms of the lease notice under section 106 of the Act was not required. One of the terms of the lease was that if there was a breach of any of the terms of the lease, it will not be necessary to give notice under Section 106 of the Act. The Rent Controller found that the landlord required the premises for his personal use and, therefore ordered eviction. On appeal, the point of notice was again agitated. The Appellate Authority did not proceed to decide the point of notice on the same basis on which the Rent controller proceeded to decide it. According to the Rent Controller the original notice was sufficient because the tenancy had been terminated by that notice. This view in my opinion would be sound in case that notice was not waived. After a valid notice and it has not been waived, the contractual tenancy stands terminated and what emerges thereafter is merely a statutory tenancy as observed by this court in Bhaiya Ram Hargo Lal v. Mahavir Parshad Murari Lal. AIR 1969 Punj and har 110 (FB), and in the case of a statutory tenancy no notice is required. However, the Appellate Authority proceeded on the basis that the tenant had failed to raise the plea that the landlord had waived the earlier notice and in view of the earlier notice it was not necessary to issue a fresh notice. As the Appellate authority affirmed the decision of the Rent Controller on the ground the appeal was dismissed. The tenant being dissatisfied has come up in revision to this Court.