SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1981 Supreme(SC) 130

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.S. PATHAK AND R.B. MISRA, JJ.
Krishanadeo Narayan Agarwal, Appellant
Versus
Ram Krishan Rai, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 845 of 1981
Decided on 25-2-1981.

Headnote:

Transfer of Property Act - Section 106 - Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 – Tenant – Service of Notice – Eviction - District Judge related to service of notice issued under S. 106 of Transfer of Property Act - Learned District Judge held that notice had not been served on the respondent - High Court dismissed plaintiffs second appeal in limine, on the ground that the case was concluded by findings of act - Held, In view of the opinion of this Court in Dhanpal Chettiar v. Yesodai Ammal, AIR 1979 SC 1745 no notice is necessary under S. 106 of T. P. Act in cases where the possession of the tenant is protected by Act, 1947 - In circumstances, the finding rendered by the learned District Judge can be of no avail to the respondent - Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

PATHAK, J.:— Special leave granted.

2. The only point agitated before the learned District Judge related to the service of notice issued under S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The learned District Judge held that the notice had not been served on the respondent. The High Court dismissed the plaintiffs second appeal in limine, on the ground that the case was concluded by findings of act. In this appeal before us, the only question which can conceivably be considered is whether the failure to serve notice precludes the appellant from claiming a decree for eviction. In view of the opinion of this Court in Dhanpal Chettiar v. Yesodai Ammal, AIR 1979 SC 1745 no notice is necessary under S. 106 of the T. P. Act in cases where the possession of the tenant is protected by the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947. In the circumstances, the finding rendered by the learned District Judge can be of no avail to the respondent.

3. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the decree of the High Court is set aside and the suit is decreed for ejectment. However, a period of nine months from today is allowed to the respondent to vacate the premises on furnishing an undertaking in the usual terms within three weeks from today. There is no order as to costs.

Appeal allowed.

For Citation : AIR 1982 SC 783 (1)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top