LAWS(P&H)-2005-3-32

GURBAKHSH KAUR Vs. RAJ KUMAR

Decided On March 30, 2005
Gurbakhsh Kaur Appellant
V/S
RAJ KUMAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff/appellant (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) has filed the present Regular Second Appeal against the judgment dated 11.10.1999 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Hoshiarpur, as well as the judgment of the District Judge, Hoshiarpur, dated 13.1.2000 by which the suit for possession of the shop in dispute filed by the plaintiff was dismissed.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that the plaintiff was the owner of the shop in dispute which is situated in village Kot Fatuhi, District Hoshiarpur, and the same was given on monthly rent to the defendant/respondent (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month. The plaintiff issued a legal notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) through her counsel Shri Jawala Singh Dhammi to the respondent by which the lease of the shop in question was terminated. It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant was also the owner of two other shops in which similar notices had been issued to the tenants of those shops. Legal notice issued under Section 106 of the Act was duly received by the respondent and a reply to the same was also filed by the respondent. In the reply it was stated by the respondent that the plaintiff has no right to get the shop vacated and that he is not in arrears of rent.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the plaintiff has argued before me that once a notice under Section 106 of the Act is issued to a lessee/tenant then the lessee has to vacate the premises in question. As per provisions of Section 106 of the Act, lease of immovable property for agricultural or manufacturing purposes is terminable on the part of either lessor or lessee by giving six months notice. It is contended that as a notice under Section 106 of the Act was duly served upon the respondent who had also received and replied to the same, therefore, the lease in favour of the respondent stood terminated and the respondent is liable to vacate the shop in question.