Back
1980 Supreme(SC) 388
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P N Bhagawati, S Murtaza Fazal Ali
RAMESH CHAND, APPELLANT
VERSUS
SMT. DAYAWATI GUPTA, RESPONDENT.
Civil Appeal No. 1102 of 1978, decided on September 3, 1980.
Headnote:
Transfer of Property Act – Section 106 - U.P Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendment) Act, 1954 – Transfer of Property – Possession - Learned counsel for appellant does not press appeal in view of fact that after amendment of Section of Transfer of Property Act by Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendment) Act it is not possible for him to contend that notice to quit dated given by respondent to appellant was invalid - This notice was clearly days notice terminating tenancy of appellant and requiring him to hand over possession of premises to respondent and in view of amendment of Section of Transfer of Property Act it was a valid notice - Learned counsel for appellant, however prays that appellant be given some time to vacate premises since having regard to great shortage of accommodation in - Held, Court therefore direct that if appellant files an affidavit within two weeks from today stating that he alone is in possession and occupation of premises and undertaking to this Court that he will not part with possession or occupation of premises in favour of any other person or induct anyone else in premises and that he will hand over vacant and peaceful possession of premises to respondent on or before decree for eviction will not be executed until then If however appellant fails to file affidavit within time aforesaid - Court further direct that appellant will pay to respondent or deposit in trial court within month from today all arrears of rent and/or compensation due up to date and if he fails to do so decree for eviction will become executable immediately – Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT
BHAGWATI, J. -The learned counsel for the appellant does not press the appeal in view of the fact that after the amendment of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act by the U.P. Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendment) Act, 1954, it is not possible for him to contend that the notice to quit dated April 7, 1969 given by the respondent to the appellant was invalid. This notice was clearly 30 days notice terminating the tenancy of the appellant and requiring him to hand over possession of the premises to the respondent and in view of the amendment of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, it was a valid notice. The appeal will, therefore, stand dismissed with no order as to costs.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, prays that the appellant be given some time to vacate the premises since, having regard to the great shortage of accommodation in Meerut, it would be difficult for the appellant to find alternative accommodation We, therefore, direct that if the appellant files an affidavit within two weeks from today stating that he alone is in possession and occupation of the premises and undertaking to this Court that he will not part with the possession or occupation of the premises in favour of any other person or induct anyone else in the premises and that he will hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the premises to the respondent on or before August 31, 1981, the decree for eviction will not be executed until then If, however, the appellant fails to file the affidavit within the time aforesaid, the decree for eviction will become executable forthwith. We further direct that the appellant will pay to the respondent or deposit in the trial court within one month from today all the arrears of rent and/or compensation due up to date and if he fails to do so, the decree for eviction will become executable immediately. The appellant will also continue to pay to the respondent from month to month future compensation at the rate equivalent to the original monthly rent on or before the 10th of each succeeding month.
3. There will be no order as to costs of the appeal.
