JUDGMENT

DESAI, J. :— The unsuccessful tenant in this appeal by special leave drawing his sustenance from an apparent but unreal conflict amongst certain decisions of this Court as noticed by the Kerala High Court in Lalitha v. Ayisumma, (1977) 2 Ren CR 690 made a furious attempt to re-open the controversy : whether a statutory tenant is entitled to notice as envisaged by S. 106 of the T. P. Act before an action in ejectment is commenced against him under any of the enabling provisions of the relevant Rent Restriction Act.

2. Mr. V. C. Mahajan, learned counsel for the appellant canvassed two contentions before us : (1) As the respondent landlord had not terminated the tenancy of the appellant by a notice to quit as contemplated by S. 106 of the T. P. Act, an action in ejectment under S. 13 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short the Act) is not maintainable; (2) Though the landlord sought eviction on the ground that the building was likely to fall down as it was in a dilapidated condition and had become unsafe for human habitation, the very fact that for the last 15 years the building is standing and the tenant is occupying and using it, it would ipso facto negative