BALWANT SINGH Vs. SMT. KAILASH WATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord-respondent filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter to be called the Act) against the petitioner on the ground that he required the premises in dispute bonafide for his personal necessity and also that the petitioner had materially impaired the value and utility of the said property. This was challenged by the petitioner in his written statement. Subsequently an application was made for amending the said written statement so as to take up the plea that the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act had not been served on the petitioner and consequently the eviction petition was not maintainable. This application for amendment was disallowed by the Rent Controller. In the main petition it was held that the premises were required by the landlord for personal necessity and, therefore, the order of eviction was passed. Appeal was filed against the order of eviction in which the ground was taken that amendment of the written statement had been illegally and arbitrarily disallowed by the Rent Controller. Before the Appellate Authority the only ground urged by the tenant petitioner was that it was imperative for the landlord to serve a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act before filing the eviction application. The Appellate Authority, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Rattan Lal v. Vardesh Chander, 1976 AIR(SC) 588 , held that the said notice was not necessary and dismissed the appeal. In this revision petition also, it has been only urged that the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was essential to be served by the landlord. However, this controversy has been settled by a Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Vinod Kumar, Petitioner v. Harbans Singh Azad,1977 RCJ 236 respondent, wherein it has been categorically decided that in petitions for eviction under the Rent Control Act notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was not necessary to be served by the landlord on the tenant before filing the eviction petition. Consequently, there is no merit in this revision petition which is dismissed.