JUDGMENT:- This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment, arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation. Plaintiffs instituted the suit on the allegation that the defendants were tenants of a portion of the building and were trespassers in respect of the remaining portion, and that they were liable to be ejected from the portion they were occupying as trespassers and also from the portion they were occupying as tenants because they had defaulted in paying arrears of rent and had made material alterations in the building which had affected adversely the utility of the building.

2. The case of defendants was that they were not the tenants of a portion of the building but of the entire building and the plea that they were trespassers was not a correct plea. The defendants also contended that the notice under Section 106 of the T. P. Act was bad because it was not given to the lessee, who according to them was the partnership firm and not the partners, and also because it was not in respect of the entire premises that were the subject-matter of the tenancy. It was also their case that they had committed no default in payment of rent and had made no material alterations as to make them liable to ejectment.

3. The trial court held that the notice issued to the defendants was a valid notice and the bar of Section 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act was not operative as the defendants were defaulters in payment of rent and had made unauthorised material alterations. On these findings the trial court decreed the suit for ejectment and also for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs. 3300/- and damages for use and occupation upto the date of the institution of the suit.

4. Defendants filed an appeal against the trial court's decree and the plaintiffs filed cross-objection claiming compensation for the period during which the defendants may continue to remain in possession. The lower appellate court agreed with the findings given by the trial court and dismissed the appeal. It allowed the cross-objection and directed the compensation to be paid till the date of ejectment. The defendants have now come to this court challenging the decree of the courts below.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants has challenged the correctness of all the findings recorded by the courts below. It is, however, not necessary to go into the merits of all the objections as the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act itself does not appear to be valid. In the notice given by the landlord he had mentioned that a portion of the building was in the tenancy of the defendants and the remaining portion was in their occupation as trespassers. Descriptions of portions were also given in the notice. In the end, while describing the property it was mentioned that only the specified portion of the building was in the tenancy. The notice does not purport to terminate the tenancy in respect of the entire building. The notice is in respect of the portion of the building which the landlord admitted to be in the tenancy of the defendants; it cannot be deemed to be a notice in respect of the portion of the building which according to the plaintiffs was occupied by the defendants not as tenants but as trespassers. Both the courts below have recorded the finding that the entire building and not only a portion thereof was in the tenancy of the defendants. They have found that the defendants were the tenants of the entire building and not trespassers in any portion thereof.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that even though the notice may terminate the tenancy of a portion of a property leased, it would be sufficient to determine the relationship if the tenant is required to vacate the entire premises even though he is not admitted to be the tenant thereof. No authority has been cited in respect of this contention. The contention is contrary to the plain wordings of Section 111 (h) of the T. P. Act. Learned counse

Click Here to Read the rest of this document