Back
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : Dwarka Prasad
Rawat Hardeo Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Second Appeal No. 615 of 1977
Decided On : 02/11/1981
LANDLORD AND TENANT - TENANCY - VALIDITY - CONTRACT OF TENANCY NOT IN WRITING - ARTICLE 299 OF THE CONSTITUTION - VOID CONTRACT - RESTITUTION - NOTICE TO QUIT - COMBINED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 106 OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT AND SECTION 80 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent against the State Government, which had taken on rent certain apartments in the plaintiff's fort for locating the office of the Ranger of the Forest Department. The State Government admitted the tenancy but pleaded that no proper notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was served and the tenancy was not properly terminated. The trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the suit, holding that there was no valid contract of tenancy due to non-compliance with Article 299 of the Constitution and that the notice to quit was invalid.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that although the contract of tenancy was void due to non-compliance with Article 299 of the Constitution, the plaintiff was entitled to restitution of the property and compensation for its use and occupation by the State Government under Section 70 of the Contract Act. The court also held that the combined notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was valid and that the State Government had sufficient time to vacate the premises.
Issues: 1. Whether a contract of tenancy not in writing is void under Article 299 of the Constitution? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to restitution of the property and compensation for its use and occupation by the State Government? 3. Whether a combined notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure is valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Yes, a contract of tenancy not in writing is void under Article 299 of the Constitution. 2. Yes, the plaintiff is entitled to restitution of the property and compensation for its use and occupation by the State Government under Section 70 of the Contract Act. 3. Yes, a combined notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure is valid.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the decree passed by the two courts below was modified. The plaintiff's suit for possession of the premises in dispute was decreed, along with the suit for recovery of Rs. 120 and pendente lite and future compensation, at the rate of Rs. 15 per month, until the date of delivery of possession.
2. In the written statement filed by the State, it was admitted that the premises in dispute were taken on monthly rent of Rs. 15/-for the use of the forest range office, but it was pleaded that no notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was served upon the defendant nor the tenancy was properly terminated by a notice for a period of three months. It was also stated that the defendant did not commit any default in payment of rent but the amount of arrears of rent was sent by money-order, which the plaintiff refused to accept.
.3. The trial Court held that the alleged contract executed by Ranger Ratan Lal in favour of the plaintiff was not valid because of the provisions of Article 299 of the Constitution, as there was no contract in writing expressed in the name of the Governor of the State. It was also held that a proper notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not served upon the defendant tenant, as the cause of action did not arise prior to the termination of the tenancy. However, a decree for Rs. 120 towards arrears of rent was passed on the basis of the admission of the defendant contained in the written statement regarding the existence of the
.tenancy at the rate of Rs. 15 per month, but the suit for ejectment of the defendant from the premises in question was dismissed.
4. A first appeal preferred by the plaintiff in respect of the relief of ejectment of the defendant from the premises in dispute was also dismissed by the Civil Judge, Udaipur. The first appellate Court also held that there was no valid contract of tenancy between the parties, creating the relationship of landlord and tenant, as the document executed by the Ranger Ratanlal was not in accordance with the provisions of Article 299 of the Constitution of India. But it was held that under Section 70 of the Contract Act, the plaintiff was entitled to reasonable recompense for the use and occupation of the premises in dispute by the defendant. It was also held that there was no clear notice of three months duration, ending with the month of tenancy and as such there was no compliance with the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and further that a combined notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil procedure and Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act could not have been given as no cause of action arose to the plaintiff to file a suit for ejectment before the termination of tenancy and in the absence of a proper notice terminating the tenancy, no foundation was laid for serving the notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
5. In this appeal, learned Counsel for the appellant did not contest the finding recorded by the two Courts below that on a
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
