PRAKASH MAL Vs. JASWANT RAJ SONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A common and very short point of law is involved, therefore, both these revisions were heard together. The point is whether despite a contract regarding notice between the parties, a suit can be maintainable under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act without serving such a notice? In both the cases the tenants raised objection, regarding notice by way of amendment in the written statement and additional issues were framed. The issues were decided in favour of the plaintiffs and suits were allowed to proceed.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the tenants petitioners submitted that the suits were not maintainable as no notice was served by the landlords though in both the cases there are contracts that the landlord will have to give one month's notice before getting the premises evicted as mentioned in receipts. But the learned counsel for the landlords respondents submitted that it was not necessary to issue a notice because the agreement about the notice has no force of law. They contended that Hon'ble Supreme Court in V. Dhanapal Chettiar vs. Yesodai Ammal (AIR 1979 SC page 1745), has held 1228 that no notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is required to be given before filing a suit under various Rent Control Acts in various States of India. They also relied on Girraj Kishore Sharma vs. Tejmal Gupta & Ors. (RLR 1990 (2) page 321), in which it has been held that it is not necessary for landlord to serve notice to quite before filing of suit for eviction against tenant and, therefore, no issue need be framed on this point in a suit for eviction. Reliance has also been placed on Kesardeo vs. Smt. Bhooridevi & Ors. (1980 WLN (UC) page 171), wherein it was held that in a suit for eviction under Rent Control Act notice determining tenancy under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act before filing a suit for eviction by the landlord against the tenant was not necessary.