(1.) This appeal arises out of an ejectment suit which has been concurrently dismissed by the Courts below. The defendant had taken the house in dispute on rent on 11th Jeth 2000 on a monthly rental of Rs.15/-. The plaintiff brought the present suit with the allegations that he required the house for his personal use, and that he had served a six months' notice upon the defendant to vacate the house as required by the provisions of the Rent Control Order. The defendant pleaded that the notice served upon him was not in order. The lower Court found in favour of the defendant and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. This order was upheld by the Senior Subordinate Judge in appeal. The plaintiff has now come in second appeal to this Court.
(2.) Notice by the landlord plaintiff has been given on 6th Katik 2005, and by this notice the defendant-respondent was required to vacate the house within six months, i.e., on or before 6th Baisakh 2006. Both the Courts below are concurrent in the finding that six months should have ended with the end of the month of tenancy, i.e., on 11th Jeth 2006 and not on 6th Baisakh 2006, as has been done in the present case. The argument in a nutshell is that though "a local law to the contrary" has lengthened the period of notice, yet this period of notice must expire with the end of the month of tenancy as is laid down in S.106, T.P. Act. In support of this proposition, the respondent's learned counsel has referred me to - Chuni Lal v. Chuni Lal ,1923 AIR(Lah) 659, in which it has been held that :
(3.) The question now before us is as to whether this proviso to R.7 of the House Rent Control Order relieves a landlord from issuing a notice, the period of which shall expire with the end of the month or year of tenancy, as required by S.106, T.P. Act. We have just seen that according to the Lahore and Bombay rulings referred to above, despite the fact that there is a contract to the contrary with regard to the period of a notice, yet the notice should end with the month or year of the tenancy as the case may be. In this case there is no provision in the contract of lease lengthening or shortening the period of notice, but there is "a local law to the contrary" which makes it necessary to give a six months' notice. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant argues that the only obligation which a landlord is placed under is that he should give a six months' notice according to the terms of the House Rent Control Order, and that the condition of a notice expiring with the end of a month of tenancy as laid down by S.106, T.P. Act, has been abrogated by R.7 of the House Rent Control Order. I am afraid I cannot agree with him. The House Rent Control Order does not abrogate S.106, T.P. Act. It has only made provision for giving some relief to the tenants such as lengthening the period of notice etc. Beyond this it does nothing, and for other purposes not dealt with in proviso to R.7 it leaves S.106, T.P. Act, unaffected. Therefore if "the local law to the contrary" provides six months' notice in place of 15 days' notice to be given by a landlord to a tenant, for the latter's ejectment, it does not relieve the landlord from that condition which is provided by S.106, T.P. Act and which is that the notice must expire with the end of the month of tenancy. The result of the present notice is that the defendant-respondent was required to vacate the house earlier than the law would otherwise entitle him to occupy it. This clearly makes the notice bad in law.