JUDGEMENT :- This is a defendants appeal, who is aggrieved by the decree directing his ejectment from the shops in dispute as also for recovery of arrears of rent and damages passed by the trial court and affirmed by the lower appellate court.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the decree of the courts below only in so far as it relates to the ejectment of the appellant. His submission in this regard is that the notice (Ext. 1) which was a combined notice demanding arrears of rent and terminating the tenancy of the defendant-appellant, was given only by two out of three lessors and could not, consequently, validly terminate his tenancy. As such, no decree for his ejectment from the shops could be passed.

3. Ext. 1 was sent by Sri H.D. Sharma, Advocate, Nainital to the defendant-appellant on instruction by Madhava Nand and Parma Nand

Chhimwal (plaintiff-respondents Nos. 1 and 2). It was a notice, under S.3 of U.P. Act No. III of 1947 and S.106 of the T.P. Act. It described the two plaintiff-respondents as the owner-land lords of the shops in question and it was mentioned therein that the defendant-appellant was in arrears of rent for the last several months which he had failed to pay in spite of repeated demands. It also mentioned that the clients (namely, Madhwa Nand and Parmanand) did not want to continue the tenancy of the defendant any more and it was being terminated from the expiry of thirty days of the receipt of the notice.

4. The suit giving rise to the present appeal was filed after the notice aforesaid had been served and all the three respondents were arrayed as plaintiffs therein. In para 4 of the plaint, it was alleged that the plaintiffs through a registered A/D notice called upon the defendant to pay arrears of rent due from him and simultaneously terminated his tenancy under S.106 of the T.P. Act. The contents of the plaint including those of the aforesaid paragraph were verified to be true on personal knowledge by the three plaintiff-respondents who signed the plaint. At the trial Parma Nand examined himself as the solitary witness on behalf of the plaintiffs. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that he was the owner of shops Nos. 126 and 127 and that he got the notice served demanding arrears of rent and terminating the tenancy of the defendant-appellant by his counsel. He also stated that he terminated the tenancy of the defendant-appellant through the notice (Ext. 1). In the cross-examination he reiterated that he was the owner of the shops since the year 1945 and that the defendant-appellant was his tenant for about 8 or 10 years. He did not, however, state a word about there being any other co-lessor with him or about his having instructed the counsel to send the notice under Section 106 on behalf of himself and other co-lessors. It is obvious, in these circumstances, that the notice (Ext. 1) neither purported to be nor was sent on behalf of all the co-owners. Such a notice cannot validly bring about the termination of the tenancy of the defendant-appellant. In Prayag Sonar v. Motar Singh (AIR 1914 All 160) a learned single Judge of this Court took the view that one of the co-lessors could not by himself determine the lease. This view was also taken by a Division Bench of the Assam High Court in Arun Chandra Dowerah v. Panchu Modok (AIR 1957 Assam 70).

5. In Sri Ram v. Gopal Dass, (AIR 1955 NUC (All) 2699), a learned Single Judge of this Court deciding a case at Lucknow took the view that where the names of 8 out of 9 co-owners of a house were only mentioned in the notice sent by a lawyer under S.106 of the T.P. Act determining the tenancy and the 9th co-owner joined in the array of plaintiffs, the notice terminating the tenancy was valid. In that case the 9th owner, apart from joining in the array of the plaintiffs also entered the witness box to prove that the notice sent by the lawyer was sent on his instruction and was on his behalf also. In Misri Lal v. Ram Gopal (1965 All WR (HC)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document