KIDAR NATH Vs. AMAR CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by Kidar Nath Bhakoo landlord against the judgment of Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, dated September 9, 1974.

(2.) Briefly, the facts are that Kidar Bhakoo was the owner of the property in dispute. He gave it on lease to Amar Chand since deceased. The landlord filed an application for ejectment of the tenant under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the 1949 Act) on the ground that he had not paid the arrears of rent from July 9, 1967 up to the date of filing of the application, that he had become an insolvent and, therefore he had become a source of nuisance to the applicant as he did not pay the rent. The tenant contested the application for ejectment and denied the allegations of the landlord, he pleaded that he had deposited the arrears of rent in the Court of Senior Subordinate judge and, therefore, he was not in arrears of rent. He denied that he was a nuisance to the landlord. He took up another plea to the effect that he was a contractual tenant and that no notice as required under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as the 1882 Act) was served upon him terminating his tenancy. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues :-

(3.) The learned Rent Controller held that the tenant had not made a valid tender ; that he was a statutory tenant and, therefore, no notice was required to be served and that he was not a nuisance to the landlord. In view of the aforesaid findings he allowed the application for ejectment. The tenant went up in appeal before the Appellate Authority. The only question which was raised before him was that a notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was necessary to be served upon the tenant. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the tenant was a contractual tenant and, therefore, a notice under section 106 of the 1882. Act was required to be served upon him. In view of the findings on issue Nos. 1-A and 1-B the learned Appellate Authority reversed the judgment of the Rent Controller and dismissed the application of the landlord for ejectment. He has come up in revision to this Court.