BALBIR KAUR Vs. BIKAL THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been directed against judgment, decree dated 3.10.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge (1), Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Appeal No. 94 -D/2004 affirming judgment, decree dated 30.10.2004 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Court No. 1, Dharamshala in Civil Suit No. 65 of 2003.

(2.) IT has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that notice Ex.PW -1/C is not in conformity with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act inasmuch as notice does not end with the end of tenancy month. It has also been submitted that there was a written agreement between the parties in which 30 days period has been provided for terminating the tenancy. It has not been denied by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is not applicable in the area where the suit property is located. In the absence of applicability of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the notice does not require to end with the end of the tenancy month. The learned Additional District Judge has relied Siri Ram v. Pritam Singh : AIR 1978 H.P. 30 that as per Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act also reasonable time is required to be given to the tenant. The agreement between the parties as contended by the learned Counsel for the Appellant has not been placed on record.