MOTILAL Vs. KESHAW DEO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only point argued in support of this appeal by the defen-dant-appellants arising out of a suit for eviction and arrears of rent is that since the plaintiff-respondents have failed to prove that a valid notice for termination of tenancy under sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act had been given before the institution of the suit, the decree for ejectment should be set aside.

(2.) IN order to appreciate the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants if would be proper to narrate a few facts giving rise to this appeal. The plaintiff-respondents leased out the premises in question which consist of four shops situated in the town of Karauli to the defendant-appellants on monthly rent of Rs. 28/-by a lease deed dated 4-5-1958. It was mentioned in the lease deed that the tenancy would be for one year and that it would be open to the parties to renew the lease deed. The plaintiffs case as set out in the plaint was that the defendents had committed default in payment of rent on three occasions within 18 months prior to the filing of the suit and the suit shops were also required by the plaintiffs for their reasonable and bona fide personal necessity. It was also averred that the plaintiffs had terminated the defendants' tenancy by notice dated 13-1-1964 which was received by the defendants on 14-l-1964 and that by the said notice the tenancy had been terminated from 4-2-1964. The defendants pleaded inter alia that they had not received any valid notice of ejectment. One of the issues framed in the case was as follows - "issue No. 7 - Did the plaintiffs terminate the tenancy by giving the defendants a valid notice of ejectment dated 13-1-1964 as a result of which the defendants' tenancy came to an end and consequently the plaintiffs are entitled to get the possession of the shops in question ?

(3.) THE appellants are granted three months' time to vacate the premises in question.