JUDGMENT :- The defendant tenant has appealed from a concurrent decree of his eviction from a house on the finding that he defaulted in payment of rent despite notice of demand having been served upon him and his tenancy having been terminated by service of a notice as required by law.

2. Admittedly the defendant appellant was the tenant of the plaintiff respondent in the house in suit. By a notice dated 4-4-1965 served on the defendant on 7-4-1965 the plaintiff asked the defendant to vacate the house and to clear off all the arrears of rent within one month after the receipt thereof. The defendant did not comply with the notice, hence the suit.

3. Amongst the pleas set up in defence was that the plaintiff was not the landlord of the defendant and that the notice to quit for terminating the tenancy was not in accordance with law.

4. Both the courts below found on the evidence on record that the defendant had attorned to the plaintiff who got the house in suit as a gift from her father and that the notice terminating the tenancy was valid and effective. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed.

5. I have heard Sri R. M. Sahai, learned counsel appearing for the defendant appellant, in support of the appeal. It was contended firstly by the learned counsel that the plaintiff failed to establish that she was the owner of the house in suit and the court below erred in holding that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. I do not find any substance in this contention. The finding recorded by the court below that the plaintiff was the owner of the house in suit is a finding of fact which has not been shown to be vitiated by any error of law or procedure. There is documentary evidence on record showing that the defendant had addressed letters to the plaintiff as the owner landlady. The learned counsel tried to argue that the inference drawn by the court below from the documentary evidence was unwarranted. I do not agree. The finding of the court below is not solely based on inferences drawn from documents but based also on a consideration of oral evidence. Once the plaintiff's evidence were believed, that would fully justify the finding recorded. Mere insufficiency of evidence has never been held to be a ground vitiating a finding of fact. I think the finding of the court below on the question of relationship of lessor and lessee between the parties is a good finding binding in second appeal.

6. Sri R. M. Sahai secondly argued that the notice served on the defendant was not in accordance with the requirements of law, hence invalid and the plaintiff was not entitled to evict the defendant, the tenancy having not been terminated. Exhibit 41 on record is a copy of the notice served on the defendant. It is as follows :-

"Registered A. D. From Shrimati Kusumlata Sinha,W/O Shri Bind Behari Sinha Tilothu House. P. S. Tilothu Shahabad (Bihar)

To Shri Suraj PrasadK 65/41 Gold Dinanath Boruni, Kabirchaura Road, Varanasi.

Ref :- Arrear rent of my house No. K 65/41 which has been let out to you.

Dear Sir,

I am sorry to remind you that you have not cared to pay the rent for the last five months. You are intentionally withholding payment.

I hereby serve you with this notice to vacate my premises and to clear off all the arrear rents within one month after the receipt of this notice failing which I shall proceed to take legal action against you.

This notice may be treated at a notice under law.

Thanking you in anticipation.

Yours faithfully SD/- Kusumlata Sinha."

dated 4-4-1965.

7. The first objection raised was that this was a notice for payment of arrears of rent and not for termination of tenancy. Emphasis was laid on the heading which confined itself to "arrear rent of my house No. K 65/41 which has been let out to you." It was submitted that on its language the intention is manifest that the landlady required the payment of arrears of rent on the threat of taking legal action if the defendant did not pay. Reliance was placed on Kailas

Click Here to Read the rest of this document