( 1 ) PRESENT is a revision petition under Section 29 (2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotels and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, by the dissatisfied tenant challenging the judgment and decree dated 20. 7. 96 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 117 of 1995 by the learned Assistant Judge, Jamnagar, confirming the judgment and decree dated 17th July, 1995, passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 91 of 1987 by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dwarka, directing eviction of the tenant. The plaintiff-respondent M/s. Tata Chemicals Ltd. , filed the suit, submitting inter alia, that the present defendant was allotted some accommodation for his residence as employee of the company and since after he had been removed from service, he is liable to be evicted. The defendant appeared before the court and raised number of the pleadings on which issues were cast and parties were allowed to lead evidence. After hearing the parties, the learned trial court decreed the suit observing that the plaintiff had successfully proved the ground of Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act. As the appeal proved futile, the plaintiff-tenant is before this Court.

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit was bad for non-joinder of the parties, because, the State Government was a necessary party in the present matter and secondly, no notice under the Rent Act was given to the defendant, but simple notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was issued to the tenant, no order of eviction could be made.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has opposed the revision petition. So far as the question of issuing a notice under the Rent Act is concerned, barring a demand notice required to be issued under Section 12 (1) of the Rent Act, notice is not required to be issued to a tenant that a ground has come into existence in favour of the landlord to seek eviction of the tenant. Settled law is that even a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, determining the tenancy of the tenant is not required to be issued. The law is that even if the tenancy is terminated under the Transfer of Property Act, a tenant cannot be evicted unless the landlord makes out a ground under the Rent Act applicable to the parties. The Supreme Court has observed that even if the tenancy is legally determined, the tenant would become statutory tenant and would be entitled to protection under the Rent Act. In view of the aforesaid, the ground relating to non-issuance of the notice under the Bombay Rent Act deserves to and is accordingly rejected.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel has submitted that the government was a necessary party, because, the suit premises were constructed by the landlord under some scheme of subsidy. The argument is absolutely misconceived. The grant of subsidy is a contract between the government and the company. A subsidy is a support to the person who receives the same. The government, while granting subsidy does not claim any right, title or interest or ownership in the property which is to be built with the help of the subsidy. If that be so, construction made by the company would belong to the company. Even otherwise, a tenant who is inducted by a particular landlord would not be entitled to challenge the title of the landlord during currency of the tenancy. Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 takes care of such situation and forbids a tenant from raising such plea against the landlord.

( 5 ) NO other ground was pressed. The revision deserves to and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief granted earlier is vacated.

.