GANESH DASS Vs. JOGA SINGH AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point involved in this petition under section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act is whether the landlord had served a valid notice on the tenant-respondent or not. The notice Exhibit P. 3 purports to have been sent by Shri J.C. Anand, Advocate of the petitioner but this was neither signed by the learned Advocate nor the petitioner himself. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that it was not a valid notice.

(2.) Shri Ram Rang, the learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the notice Exhibit P.3 is an extact copy of another notice, Exhibit P.2, which is signed by Shri Anand and which was returned to the petitioner because the addressee had left the premises without leaving any address. He submits that since the tenant-respondent had sent a reply to the notice Exhibit P.3, it must be deemed to have been served upon him. In support of his submission, he has relied on Dwarka Prasad v. Central Talkies, Collector Ganj, Kanpur, 1956 AIR(All) 187 in that case, however, it was held that where the notice to quit though not properly addressed was accepted by the defendant and he even replied to it, the notice could not be held to be invalid on the ground that it was not properly addressed as the defendant was not prejudiced thereby. That case is an authority for the proposition that even if an unsigned notice is sent to a party the same should be accepted as valid notice because the party chooses to send a reply to the same. The other authority relied upon by Shri Ram Rang is M/s. Hindustan Construction Co. v. The Union of India, 1967 AIR(SC) 526 That was the case of an award. The Arbitrator wrote a letter to the Court in which it was mentioned that he was sending a copy of the award which runs as follows. Thereafter the award was copied out and then the Arbitrator signed the end. The copy of the award accompanying the letter was, however, not signed by the Arbitrator. In these circumstances, the Court held that the letter itself could be treated as a certified copy of the award. This case is also distinguishable. What happened in this case is that a letter typed in Hindi script by some typist was sent to the respondent. Neither the counsel for the petitioner nor the petitioner himself had signed this letter. The provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, have been held to be mandatory and a notice envisaged by that section must be a notice complete in all respects bearing the signatures of the party sending the notice. I am of the view that the case of the petitioner was rightly decided by the learned Courts below. This petition deserves to fall and is accordingly dismissed.