HOTILAL Vs. CHHOGALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's second appeal and the only point involved in it is whether the notice of ejectment served on the defendant who is a tenant of the plaintiff's property was valid in law. The learned Munsif who tried the case held that the notice was not valid but the learned District Judge on appeal has reversed this finding and has held that it was valid.

(2.) IT has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the notice was signed by Chhoga Lal and Sham Sunder who are landlords. The name of Sham Sunder and Prabhu Narain was written by Prabhu Narain in his own hand. The notice does not show how Prabhu Narain was authorised to sign on behalf of the plaintiffs Moreover in the evidence as well there is nothing to show that Prabhu Narain was authorised to sign the notice on behalf of the plaintiffs. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel. Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act requires that a notice under that section must be in writing signed by or on behalf of the person giving it. The notice was not signed by the plaintiffs themselves; but it clearly shows that it was signed by Prabhu Narain the son of Sham Sunder and the nephew of Chhoga Lal on their behalf. There is nothing in sec. i 106 to show that there must be authority in any particular form for the person who sign the notice on behalf of the persons giving notice. The learned counsel for the appellant argues that a man in the street cannot sign a notice on behalf of the landlord. Suffice it to say that Prabhu Narain was not a man in the street. The plaintiffs are own brothers and Prabhu Narain is the son of one and the nephew of the other and it is in evidence that he signed the notice on their behalf by the consent of the plaintiffs who were present when the notice was written and signed. The learned District Judge was perfectly justified in holding that the notice was a valid notice under sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.