A notice terminating the tenancy under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is not required for eviction of a statutory tenant under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

( 1 ) KRISHNA Devi Bagadia, the. landlord of the House in question, filed a petition for eviction against the appellants. Eviction was claimed under section 14 (l) (b) and (h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, and by order dated February 22, 1968, the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, allowed the petition on the grounds that tenant Roop Narain Goela had sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the premises in dispute in favour of Mangey Ram and Parkash Chand, appellants No. 2 and 3 respectively, without the written consent of the landlord and that tenant Roop Narain Goela had built, a residential house in Greater Kailash, New Delhi. The appellants filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, which was dismissed on March II, 1968, in limine. From the order of the Tribunal it appears that the only question raised by the appellants was about the necessity of a notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy before taking proceedings for eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The appellants have filed the present second appeal in this Court against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated March 11, 1968, and their learned counsel confined his arguments only to the point whether or not notice under section 106 was necessary.

( 2 ) BOTH the Rent Control Tribunal and the Additional Rent Controller recorded a finding that the first appellant (tenant) being a statutory tenant no notice terminating the tenancy was necessary. In paragraph 18 (b) of the petition it has been alleged by the landlord that "no notice is required. The tenancy was initially for a period of 11 months, which came to end on the expiry of the said period on 20th June, 1958. The respondent No. I is a statutory tenant. There is no specific denial of this assertion in the written-statement. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that two important factors were completely destructive of the tenancy being a statutory one-

(1) Although the tenancy is alleged to have come to end on the 20th June, 1958, yet the landlord had been regularly accepting rent ; and

(2) the landlord had never intimated the tenant that his tenancy was a statutory one.

IN Ganga Dutt Murarka v. Karfik Chandi-c, Das and others, (1) it was held that where a contractual tenancy to which the rent control legislation applies has come to an end by efflux of time or by determination by notice to quit and the tenant continues in possession of the premises, acceptance of rent from the tenant by the landlord after he expiration or determination of the contractual tenancy will not afford ground for holding that the landlord has assented to a new contractual tenancy. The following observations of B. K. Mukherjea, J. , (as His Lordship then was) in Kai Khushroo v. Bai Jerbai, (2) approved by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ganga Duffs case :

". . . . . IN cases of tenancies relating to dwelling houses to which the Rent Restriction Acts apply, the tenant may enjoy a statutory immunity from eviction even after the lease has expired. The landlord cannot eject him except on specified grounds mentioned in the Acts themselves. In such circumstances, acceptance "of rent by the landlord from a statutory tenant whose lease has already expired could not be regarded as evidence of a new agreement of tenancy and it would not be open to such a tenant to urge, by way of defence, in a suit for ejectment brought against him under the provisions of Rent Restriction Act that by acceptance of rent a fresh tenancy was created which had to be determined by a fresh notice to quit. "

IT, therefore, stands finally settled by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that mere acceptance of rent from a statutory tenant is not sufficient to show that a fresh tenancy was created. There is nothing more in this case beyond the payment of rent. As a matter of fact, the tenant did not in his statement even. allege that a new tenancy had.