SATISH KUMAR Vs. KAUSHALAYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The main proposition of law involved in the present appeal pertains to the applicability of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, to the present case.

(2.) AT the first instance, it has to be decided whether under the circumstances of the present case, service of statutory notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, upon the tenant-appellant before filing of the suit was essential and if it was so, whether the notice served upon the tenant was in compliance of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.

(3.) SHER Singh, predecessor of Smt. Kaushalya Devi and Babu Ram filed a suit against the present appellant for his ejectment from the shop, under reference, and for recovery of Rs. 1,800/- being arrears of rent from 1.9.1986 to May, 1987 at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month. According to the plaintiffs, they were owner/landlords of the shop in dispute which was taken by the defendant on monthly rent of Rs. 200/- and that defendant had agreed to pay the said stipulated rent in advance on the 1st day of each calender month. Plaintiff's further case has been that it was also agreed that defendant would vacate the said shop premises and hand over the vacant possession of the same to them when the same was required. Further, it was also agreed by the defendant that in default of payment of rent of said shop even for a single month, the tenancy would be deemed to be terminated automatically. It was also pleaded by the plaintiffs that the defendant was requested in the month of August, 1986 to vacate the premises in dispute as they required the shop in question for their own use but the defendant did not vacate the same and stopped paying rent of the said shop since September, 1986. Plaintiffs also pleaded that rent of nine months at the rate of Rs. 200/- has not been paid for which they were entitled to an amount of Rs. 1,800/- in this behal. Plaintiffs very specifically averred that a legal notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of the Property Act, was also served upon the defendant, but no reply has been received. As the defendant did not vacate the shop premises nor paid the arrears of rent, hence the suit was filed.