Rent Control Court has no jurisdiction to entertain petition.

The tenant under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. He had taken on lease premises No. 49-A, Upper Bazaar, Ooty, on a rent of Rs. 35 per mensem. On 13th August, 1965, the landlords issued a notice to the petitioner-tenant terminating the tenancy and calling upon him to pay Rs. 595 which was the amount due to them as rent. This notice was served on the petitioner-tenant on 18th August, 1965. The petitioner-tenant gave a reply on 25th August, 1965, in which he denied his liability to pay Rs. 595 and also contended that the notice was not in accordance with the provisions of section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. On 17th January, 1966, the landlords filed a petition for eviction of the petitioner-tenant on various grounds, namely, wilful default etc. They claimed arrears of rent upto that date Rs. 770 On 25th February, 1966, an ex parte order was passed against the tenant. It was restored on 18th March, 1966 and time was granted for filing written statement (counter). The petitioner-tenant filed the same on 4th April, 1966. He did not deposit any amount; nor did he raise the question as to lack of proper notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. On 18th April, 1966, he paid Rs. 400 when a sum of Rs. 875 was due. On 13th June, 1966, the Rent Controller directed the petitioner-tenant to deposit the arrears and posted the petition for being called on 2oth June, 1966. On 20th June, 1966, the Counsel reported no instructions and the petition was allowed with costs. On 29th July, 1966, the petition was restored to file and the petitioner-tenant paid a sum of Rs. 510 out of Rs. 580 that was due. As already observed, in the written statement before the Rent Controller, the petitioner-tenant did not raise the plea about the defect in notice. The Rent Controller allowed the petition and ordered eviction. The tenant preferred an appeal, C. M. A. No. 39 of 1966. In the original memorandum of appeal, he did not raise the question about want of notice but filed an additional memorandum of grounds on 24th February, 1967, wherein he contended that proper notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was not given. There is some dispute between the parties as to whether the question of proper notice was argued before the Subordinate Judge or not. The order of the Subordinate Judge does not refer to the contention that the notice was not in accordance with the provision under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Subordinate Judge also upheld the plea of the respondents-landlords and confirmed the order of the Rent Controller directing the eviction of the petitioner-tenant on the ground of wilful default. The tenant took up the matter to the District Judge. Before him, the question as to the defect in notice was argued elaborately. The learned Judge found that the notice was not in accordance with section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, but from the circumstances of the case inferred that the tenant had waived his right to raise this contention.

The petitioner-tenant has taken the matter before this Court in Civil Revision Petition. It is contended, that failure to give notice in accordance with the provisions of section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is fatal to the petitioner as the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition and in any event, the order for eviction cannot be passed when there is failure to comply with the provisions of section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The petitioner tenant has also contended that the superstructure belongs to him and, therefore, the proceedings under the Rent Control Act is not competent. The landlords, on the other hand, would contend that the superstructure also belongs to them. As the dispute regarding superstructure has not been pleaded before the trial Court, this question cannot be allowed to be raised at this stage and, therefore, I refrain from d