IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J. C. Gupta, J.
GURDAYAL SARAN PRASAD - Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT JUDGE, DEHRADUN - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 11407 Of 1981
Decided On : 07/13/1997
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT - SECTION 106 - NOTICE OF TERMINATION - VALIDITY - CO-LESSORS - ALL CO-LESSORS MUST JOIN IN THE NOTICE AND SUIT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a suit for rent and ejectment after serving a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act on the respondent, terminating her tenancy. The trial court decreed the suit, but the revisional court set aside the decree for ejectment, holding that the notice was invalid because it was not sent by all the co-lessors.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the notice of termination was invalid because it was not sent by all the co-lessors. The court relied on the definition of "landlord" in Section 3(j) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, which defines "landlord" as a person to whom rent is or would be payable if the building were let. The court held that since the rent was payable to the plaintiff and his brothers and sisters after the death of their mother, they were all landlords and should have joined in the notice and suit.
Issues: Whether the notice of termination under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a notice of termination under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act must be sent by all the co-lessors. The court relied on the definition of "landlord" in Section 3(j) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, which defines "landlord" as a person to whom rent is or would be payable if the building were let. The court held that since the rent was payable to the plaintiff and his brothers and sisters after the death of their mother, they were all landlords and should have joined in the notice and suit.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the notice of termination was invalid and that the revisional court was correct in setting aside the decree for ejectment.
( 1 ) HEARD the petitioners counsel as well as Sri Shakti Swaroop Nigam for the respondents.
( 2 ) BY means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order of the Additional District judge dated 1. 7. 81 whereby petitioners suit for ejectment and mesne profit has been dismissed.
( 3 ) UNDISPUTEDLY petitioner filed suit for rent and ejectment after serving a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act on respondent No. 3 whereby her tenancy was terminated. The trial court decreed the suit for rent as well as for ejectment. The revisional court, however, set aside the judgment of the lower court so far as it related to the decree of ejectment.
( 4 ) THE only point for consideration in this writ petition is whether the notice under Section 106, transfer of Property Act served by the petitioner on the respondents was a valid notice. The revisional court has taken the view that since it was admitted to the petitioner-landlord himself that during the life time of his mother, he (plaintiff) realized rent from the defendant/tenant on behalf of his mother and after her death, he realized the rent for himself as well as for his brothers and sisters, the plaintiff was not the sole owner-landlord of the disputed accommodation and he alone was not entitled to terminate the tenancy of the defendant by sending a notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, and with these findings, suit for ejectment has been dismissed. It is also borne out from the Judgment that the notice of termination was not sent by the brothers and sisters of the plaintiff nor the notice in question was alleged to have been sent by the plaintiff on behalf of other co-lessors namely plaintiffs brothers and sisters. In the suit also, none of the plaintiffs brothers and sisters were impleaded as parties. In the case of Tara chand v. Vishambhar Nath, 1981 ARC 688, it was held that the notice should be given by all the landlords and they should all join in the suit. That will apply not only to a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act but also to a notice under Section 3 (1) (a) of the Act. If notice did not fulfil this requirement, the same was not valid to bring suit for ejectment. In another case of Hira Lal Jasrapuri v. IIIrd Additional District Judge. Gorakhpur and others, 1982 (1) ARC 117, it was held that unless the other co-landlords were impleaded as defendants in the suit filed by one of the co-landlords alone, even a decree for arrears of rent could not be passed. In that case, reliance was placed on the decision in P. K. Tondon v. Smt. Ganga Devi Rathor, 1969 ALJ 405. Similar view was also expressed in the case of Ganga Narain and another v. IXth a. D. J. , Kanpur and others, 1984 (1) ARC 342.
( 5 ) FROM the petitioners side, reliance has been placed on the Supreme Court decision in Kanta goel u. B. P. Pathak and others. AIR 1977 SC 1599. This case was also referred before the revisional court and the revlsional court has rightly distinguished this case, inasmuch as the definition of the word landlord as given in U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 materially differs from the definition as given in Section 2 (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Under the Delhi Rent Control act the said Section defines landlord as under :
"landlord means a person who, for the time being is receiving, or is entitled to receive, the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or on account of or on behalf of, or for the benefit of, any other person or as a trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person or who would use and receive the rent, or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant. " the word tenant was also defined to mean any person by whom or on whose account or behalf the rent of any premises is payable. It was in the context of the above two definitions that the Supreme Court took the view that the co-heirs of a deceased-landlord constituted a body of the landlords and, by conse
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.