Issuance of valid notice was necessary.

Order.- All these three Revision Petitions arise out of a common order passed in three different Rent Control applica-tions, both by the Rent Controller and also by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner in those eviction petitions is the same. He filed the eviction petitions in respect of three different shops occupied by the different respondents therein under sections 10(2)(7) and 14(1)(b) of the Act.

2. The trial Court found that the requirement of the building for demolition and reconstruction under section 14(1)(b) is bona fide but holding that there is no valid notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, dismisssed the eviction petitions. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the lardlord preferred three Rent Control Appeals. The lower Appellate Court confirmed the finding as regards the bona fide requirement of the landlord is concerned for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction. On the ground of defective notice, the lower Appellate Court observed that the vague allegation of the petitioners herein to the effect that the landlord is not the absolute owner of the property will amount to denial of the landlord’s title and as such, no notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is necessary. The lower Appellate Court also held that Exhibit P.9 and P.12 notice issued are valid and sufficient in law for filing the eviction petitions. With these observations, the lower Appellate Court ordered eviction-Aggrieved by the order passed by the lower Appellate Court, the petitioners, in each of these Revision Petitions have filed independent Civil Revision Petitions which are numbered as C.R.Ps.Nos.455 to 457 of 1975.

3. At the outset, I am convinced that the finding as regards the bona fides made by the Courts below is correct.

4. Mr. Kuppuswamy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in each of these Revision Petitions submitted that the eviction petitions must fail for want of notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. For this purpose, he read the notices given by the landlord and also the reply, Exhibit P-14. According to the learned counsel, there is absolutely no denial of title by the tenants ; nor is there any evidence as regards the denial of title alleged by the respondent herein. Except pleading that the tenants have denied the title, the respondent has not proved whether there was such a denial. Hence, Mr. Kuppuswamy, the learned counsel submits that notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is necessary before filing any petition for eviction and since the respondent in each of the revision petitions failed to give such a notice, the eviction petitions ought to have been dismissed on this short ground alone. Mr. B.T. Seshadri, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent landlord, read to me the petitions and counter-statements filed in H.R.C.No.3062 of 1972 and also the petitions filed in the present Rent Control Applications for the purpose of establishing that the tenants have denied the title at least partially. According to the learned counsel, such a denial of title will disentitle the tenants to ask for notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. It is submitted that the notice issued must be construed as one under section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act inasmuch as the tenants have denied the title of the respondents herein.

5. To substantiate his contentions, Mr.B.T. Seshadti cited Hashmat Husain v. Saghir Ahmad1, Thangavelu v. Bahadur Sheriff2 and Venkaji Krishna Nadkarni v. Lakshman Devji Kandar1.As far as the Allahabad deci-sion is concerned, the petition is not filed under the Rent Control Act but that is a suit in ejectment wherein the Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that partial denial of title will disentitle the tenant to ask for notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The other two decisions cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case. 6. The present application

Click Here to Read the rest of this document