JUDGMENT

BEG J.:—The defendant-appellant had taken a house on rent under a registered lease dated 10th February, 1958, on a monthly rent of Rs. 250/- for a period of five years for running a lodging house. It is admitted by both sides that in February, 1963, the lease had expired. According to the landlord respondent, the defendant-appellant had continued to hold over as a tenant "on the same terms" by which he, presumably, meant that it was a month to month tenancy.

2. The Andhra Pradesh Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) came into operation before the lease expired.

3. The appellant seemed to be constantly making defaults in payments of rent. The landlord respondent had, therefore, , to file a suit for arrears of rent in the Court of District Munsif. Visakhapatnam, which was decreed on 4th April, 1962. The landlord respondent had to file a petition on 21st April, 1962, under Section 10 of the Act before the Rent Controller, Visakhapatnam for the eviction of the appellant as no rent was paid from 1st December, 1961 to 31st March, 1962. There was a compromise on 12th October, 1962. The appellant agreed to clear arrears and to pay rents regularly. The appellant, however, willfully defaulted again in payments of rent from September, 1963 to April, 1964. A notice dated 8th April, 1964, was sent by registered post by the landlord respondent to the appellant terminating his tenancy and calling upon him to pay up the arrears of rent and vacate the house by the end of April 1964. This came back with the endorsement that the appellant was refusing to accept it. On 9th April, 1964, the respondent filed another petition under Section 10 of the Act before the Rent Controller of Visakhapatnam who ordered the eviction of the appellant after holding all the flimsy defences of the appellant to be unsubstantiated. The Subordinate Judge of Visakhapatnam dismissed the tenant s appeal on 23rd October, 1968. The appellant s revision application to the High Court was also rejected on 19th August, 1969.

4. The only question raised by the appellant before us, in this appeal by special leave, is that no notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act had been served upon the appellant according to the finding of the Andhra Pradesh High Court itself. It was, therefore, urged that the petition under Section 10 of the Act could not succeed. The Andhra Pradesh High Court had, however, relied upon Ulligappa v. S. Mohan Rao, (1969-2 Andh LT 268), where a Division Bench of that High Court had held that the Act, with which we are now concerned, provided a procedure for eviction of tenants which was self-contained so that no recourse to the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was necessary.

5. We may also refer here to the observations of this Court in Ravel and Co. v. K. C. Ramachandran, (1974) 2 SCR 629 at p. 634. There this Court noticed Shri. Hem Chand v. Smt. Sham Devi, ILR (1955) Punj 36 and pointed out "that it was held there that the Act under consideration in that case provided the whole procedure for obtaining the relief of ejectment, and, that being so, provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act had no relevance". No doubt the decision mentioned with approval by this Court related to another enactment. But, the principle indicated by this Court was the same as that applied by the Andhra Pradesh High Court.

6. It is true that, in Mangilal v. Sugan Chand Rathi, AIR 1965 SC 101 (Deceased) etc., this Court has held that the provisions of Section 4 of the Madhra Pradesh Accommodation Control Act of 1955 do not dispense with the requirement to comply with the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. In that case, however, Section 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Act merely operated as a bar to an ordinary civil suit so that service of a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act became relevant in considering whether an ordinary civil