IMPORTANT POINT
In Haryana, filing an eviction suit serves as a sufficient notice to quit, and strict compliance with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is not required.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Deepak Gupta, J.: This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the concurrent finding of the Courts below, whereby suit filed by the plaintiff - Babu Lal (now appellant through his LRs) seeking ejectment of the defendant - Ram Lal (now respondent) from the demised shop, was dismissed. To avoid confusion, parties shall be referred as per their status before the trial Court.

2.1 Admittedly, plaintiff-Babu Lal (now represented through his LRs) is the owner of a shop detailed and described in the head note of the plaint, situated at Rewari Road, Narnaul, in which defendant-Ram Lal was inducted as a tenant vide a rent note dated 09.03.1978.

2.2 Suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent was filed by plaintiff, pleading that construction of the shop was completed on 09.01.1978 after taking necessary permission from the Municipal Committee and so, the provisions of Rent Act were not applicable. Still further, it was pleaded that tenancy of defendant was terminated by serving a notice dated 03.10.1983 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] w.e.f. 08.11.1983, but defendant failed to vacate the shop and thus, he was in unauthorized possession.

2.3 Defendant in his written statement did not dispute the rent note. However, as per him, shop in question was constructed in 1974-75 and so, pleaded that provisions of Rent Act were applicable. He also pleaded that legal notice under Section 106 of the Act was defective and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

2.4 Necessary issues were framed. Evidence produced by the parties were taken on record. Trial Court came to the conclusion that shop in question was constructed within 10 years prior to the date of letting of the same to the defendant vide rent note dated 09.03.1978 and therefore, provisions of Rent Act were not applicable. It was further found that legal notice dated 03.10.1983 was defective and thus, tenancy of the defendant had not been legally terminated. With these findings, suit for ejectment was dismissed, although the relief for recovery of the arrears was granted. Judgment dated 04.05.1989 to this effect was followed by decree of the even date. These findings as returned by the trial Court were upheld by the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 18.07.1991 and as such, the appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed.

3.1 The short and precise question as raised before this Court is regarding the legality of the legal notice. It is contended by ld. counsel for the appellant that strict compliance of Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, are not applicable in the State of Haryana and that it is only the principle, which is applicable. The Courts below while giving finding regarding the legality of notice Ex.P 5/1 has not taken into consideration this aspect and that the appellant was required to serve a 15 days clear notice to the respondent, which was duly complied with in the present case.

3.2 Ld. counsel has referred to decisions of this Court rendered in “State Bank of Patiala Vs. Joint Hindu Family Firm Inder Sain Nanak Chand” [Civil Misc. 3081-C of 1991, decided on 10.12.1993], “Harikesh Vs. Smt. Narain Devi (Widow) and others” [RSA No.3494 of 2007, decided on 10.12.2009] and “Smt. Gurkanwal Virk Vs. M/s Anand Sweets and Restaurant and another”[RSA No.910 of 2013, decided on 20.10.2015].

4. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the respondent argued that Courts below have rightly held the notice under Section 106 of the Act to be invalid.

5. Submissions considered. Record perused.

6. Ld. trial Court by placing reliance on “Durga Parshad Vs. Bhagwan Devi”, AIR 1967 Punjab 404 held that notice of termination of tenancy must be served by the landlord to the tenant requiring the tenant to the vacate the premises under his tenancy before the commencement of a fresh month. By holding that in the present case, no period was fixed for tenancy of the defendant and thus, there was no date of commencement of the tenancy a