D. C. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is tenants revision under Sec. 29 (2) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 (for short "the Act" ).

( 2 ) BRIEF facts are that the disputed accommodation was let out to the defendant revisionist on monthly rent of Rs. 38/- Rent fell due from him with effect from 1. 6. 1978 to 30. 6. 1979. Demands were made by the plaintiff, but the arrears were not paid by the defendant revisionist. Consequently composite notice of demand and ejectment was issued on 31. 7. 1979 which was served on the revisionist. He did not comply with the direction given in the notice nor paid arrears or rent. Consequently suit for eviction was filed on the ground of arrears of rent. During the pendency of the suit the plaint was amended and two more grounds were added. It was alleged that the revisionist was keeping two buffaloes in the premises due to which the premises became dirty and it causes nuisance to other tenants. Another ground was that the defendant is also collecting and keeping grass in the Suit-premises which amounts to change of user of the Suit property.

( 3 ) THE case has a checquered history. The defendant was served with notice, but he did not appear initially. Hence ex-parte decree was passed. He preferred an Appeal, but there also he faulted and there was delay in preferring the Appeal. An application for condonation of delay was moved which was rejected by the Appellate Court. Revision was preferred against that order in this Court which was allowed. Application for condonation of delay was allowed. Thereafter the Appeal was preferred. It was heard and decided. The Appellate Court remanded the Suit to the Trial Court for fresh hearing after affording opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. Thereupon the defendant revisionist filed written statement wherein he admitted the rate of rent and that the tenancy was monthly. He, however, denied that he was in arrears of rent. He pleaded that he deposited the rent in Court. He also denied the allegations of nuisance and change of user made by the landlord during pendency of the suit.

( 4 ) THE Trial Court disbelieved subsequent two grounds added in the plaint, viz. the tenant changing the user of the suit premises and causing and creating nuisance and annoyance therein. The Suit was, however, decreed on grounds of arrears of rent. The trial Court found that the notice was valid and that rent was not paid within a month of service of notice of demand.

( 5 ) APPEAL was preferred by the revisionist which was dismissed. Hence this revision.

( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the parties were heard. The first contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the notice of demand is invalid. He further contended that the notice to quit is also invalid. Lastly he contended that the two Courts below did not consider the tenants readiness and willingness to pay the arrears of rent. On these grounds he contended that the decree for eviction is libale to be set aside.

( 7 ) SO far as first contention is concerned the notice Ex. 12 on record is in Gujarati. English translation of the said notice has been filed by the learned Counsel for the revisionist as well as by the learned Counsel for the respondent.

( 8 ) IN this connection argument of the learned Counsel for the revisionist has been that a composite notice of demand and ejectment is invalid. There is no force in this contention. Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act lays down in what manner the tenancy is to be determined. Termination of tenancy under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of property Act is not based upon certain contingency nor any reason is to be assigned by the landlord for terminating tenancy. If a suit for eviction is to be filed under the General law, viz. the law of landlord and tenant within the meaning of Sec. 106 of the Transfer of property Act the Suit eviction against the tenant can be filed straight-way without assigning any reason why the landlord wants to evict the tenant. If, however, the Suit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document