Back
Allahbad High Court
K.N.SRIVASTAVA
Mewa Lal - Appellant
Versus
Tara Rani - Respondent
Decided On : 03/21/1972
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT - SECTION 131 - NOTICE OF TRANSFER OF ACTIONABLE CLAIM - SALE OF PROPERTY - RENT REALISATION - ACCOMMODATION - U. P. TEMPORARY CONTROL OF RENT AND EVICTION ACT - SECTION 2(1) - BUILDING - MANUFACTURING PROCESS - NOTICE TO TERMINATE TENANCY - SECTION 106 - TERMINATION IN PRAESENTI - U. P. URBAN BUILDINGS (REGULATION OF LETTING RENT AND EVICTION) BILL, 1970 - ADJOURNMENT OF APPEAL - SUMMARY :- The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent against the defendant-appellants, who were tenants of the disputed property on a monthly rent of Rs. 18/-. The defendants contested the suit on various grounds, including that the sale-deeds by which the plaintiff acquired title to the property were invalid, that the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was invalid, and that the property was an accommodation governed by the U. P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act (the Act), and therefore, no suit for ejectment could be filed without complying with the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. The trial court and the lower appellate court decreed the plaintiff's suit. On appeal, the High Court held that: (i) Section 131 of the Transfer of Property Act, which requires a notice of transfer of an actionable claim to be in writing, did not apply to the sale of the property in question, as the right to realise rent from the tenant was not an actionable claim but a right of ownership; (ii) the sale-deeds by which the plaintiff acquired title to the property were valid and conveyed a good title to the plaintiff; (iii) the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was valid and terminated the tenancy in accordance with law; (iv) the property in question was not an accommodation within the meaning of the Act, as it was a vacant land surrounded by boundary walls and was not used for residential or non-residential purposes; (v) the drying of husk on the land in dispute did not constitute a manufacturing process; and (vi) the appeal could not be adjourned until the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Bill, 1970, came into force, as the court had to decide cases in accordance with the existing law.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent against the defendant-appellants, who were tenants of the disputed property on a monthly rent of Rs. 18/-. The defendants contested the suit on various grounds, including that the sale-deeds by which the plaintiff acquired title to the property were invalid, that the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was invalid, and that the property was an accommodation governed by the U. P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act (the Act), and therefore, no suit for ejectment could be filed without complying with the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. The trial court and the lower appellate court decreed the plaintiff's suit.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that: (i) Section 131 of the Transfer of Property Act, which requires a notice of transfer of an actionable claim to be in writing, did not apply to the sale of the property in question, as the right to realise rent from the tenant was not an actionable claim but a right of ownership; (ii) the sale-deeds by which the plaintiff acquired title to the property were valid and conveyed a good title to the plaintiff; (iii) the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was valid and terminated the tenancy in accordance with law; (iv) the property in question was not an accommodation within the meaning of the Act, as it was a vacant land surrounded by boundary walls and was not used for residential or non-residential purposes; (v) the drying of husk on the land in dispute did not constitute a manufacturing process; and (vi) the appeal could not be adjourned until the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Bill, 1970, came into force, as the court had to decide cases in accordance with the existing law.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 131 of the Transfer of Property Act applied to the sale of the property in question. 2. Whether the sale-deeds by which the plaintiff acquired title to the property were valid. 3. Whether the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was valid. 4. Whether the property in question was an accommodation within the meaning of the Act. 5. Whether the drying of husk on the land in dispute constituted a manufacturing process. 6. Whether the appeal could be adjourned until the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Bill, 1970, came into force.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 131 of the Transfer of Property Act, which requires a notice of transfer of an actionable claim to be in writing, did not apply to the sale of the property in question, as the right to realise rent from the tenant was not an actionable claim but a right of ownership. 2. The sale-deeds by which the plaintiff acquired title to the property were valid and conveyed a good title to the plaintiff. 3. The notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was valid and terminated the tenancy in accordance with law. 4. The property in question was not an accommodation within the meaning of the Act, as it was a vacant land surrounded by boundary walls and was not used for residential or non-residential purposes. 5. The drying of husk on the land in dispute did not constitute a manufacturing process. 6. The appeal could not be adjourned until the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Bill, 1970, came into force, as the court had to decide cases in accordance with the existing law.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.
The defendants are tenants of the disputed property on a monthly rent of Rupees 18/-. The property originally belonged to one Kanhaiyalal who died in the year 1933. Raj Kumar Agrawal is said to be the son of Kanhaiyalal. Smt. Nanhi Bibi is the widow of Kanhaiyalal. According to the plaintiff, Raj Kumar Agrawal was born seven months after the death of Kanhaiyalal and was the natural son of Kanhaiyalal. The property in dispute was sold by Smt. Nanhi Bibi to Smt. Tara Rani, plaintiff-respondent on 7-3-1967. It was then realised that the property belonged to Raj Kumar Agrawal who was the natural son of Kanhaiyalal. Raj Kumar Agrawal then executed another sale-deed on 24-4-1967 in favour of Smt. Tara Rani. Smt. Tara Rani then served a notice on the defendants alleging that they were in arrears of rent and that their tenancy was terminated in accordance to Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. After this notice, the suit for ejectment and arrears of rent was filed.
2. The suit was contested by the defendant-appellants on various grounds. The first ground was that no title and interest passed to the plaintiff in the disputed property by the sale-deeds. The second contention was that the notice under Sec. 106 of the T. P. Act was invalid. The third contention was that a building stood on the land in dispute in 1950 which was an accommodation as provided under the U. P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and, therefore, no suit for ejectment of the defendant-appellants could be filed without complying with the provisions of section 3 of the Act. In this very connection, it was also contended that admittedly there was a building on this land which was constructed in 1959 and when the Act came into force, it was an accommodation governed by the Act. The other contention was that Smt. Nanhi Bibi had remarried another person after the death of Kanhaiyalal and that Raj Kumar Agrawal was the son born of the second husband of Smt. Nanhi Bibi and was not entitled to the property in dispute. All these contentions did not find favour with the trial Court and the lower appellate Court. The plaintiff's suit was, therefore, decreed. Being dissatisfied, the defendants have filed this appeal.
3. The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that it was a transferable and actionable claim and as provided under Section 131 of the Transfer of Property Act, there being no notice of transfer of actionable claim in writing, the suit was not maintainable. Section 131 of the Transfer of Property Act reads as below :-
'Every notice of transfer of an actionable claim shall be in writing, signed by the transferor or his agent duly authorised in this behalf, or in case the transferor refuses to sign, by the transferee or agent, and shall state the name and address of the transferee."
4. "Actionable claim" has been defined under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act which reads as below :-
"Actionable claim" means a claim to any debt, other than a debt secured by mortgage of immovable property or by hypothecation or pledge of moveable property, or to any beneficial interest in moveable property not in the possession, either actual or constructive, of the claimant, which the Civil Courts recognise as affording grounds for relief, whether such debt or beneficial interest be existent, accruing, conditional or contingent."
5. Thus in order to apply Section 131 of the Transfer of Property Act to the facts of this case, it has to be seen as to whether the sale of the house and the right of realisation of rent from the tenant under the sale-deed was an actionable claim. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the right to realise rent from the defendant-appellants was an actionable claim because it was a debt which could be recovered from the tenant. In the instant case, there was no transfer of right to realise rent. S
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
