JUDGMENT :- The appellant is admittedly the tenant and respondent the landlord of the accommodation in suit. Plaintiff-respondent, the landlord being a minor, a composite notice of demand and determination of rent was sent under Registered cover to the appellant on 8-4-1967. This notice is said to have been served on 11-04-1967. As the appellant neither paid the rent nor vacated the shop, hence the suit out of which this appeal arises was filed.

2. The suit was contested by the defendant-appellant on the ground that the natural guardian of the minor being the father who is alive, the mother was incompetent to act as next friend of the minor and in any event the notice by the mother, Smt. Chameli Devi on behalf of the minor was bad in law. It was also contended that payment of the arrears had been made to Choudhary Gur Dayal Singh, father of the minor. The receipt of the notice of demand and determination of rent was also denied.

3. The trial court held that Smt. Chameli Devi was competent to file the suit on behalf of the minor as his next friend, that a notice of ejectment and demand had been actually served and that the defendant had not paid the arrears either to the landlord or to Gur Dayal Singh. The suit of the plaintiff was accordingly decreed. In appeal the lower appellate court confirmed the finding of the trial court, hence this Second Civil Appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has reiterated that Smt. Chameli Devi was neither competent to give notice nor was she competent to file the suit as next friend of the minor. His contention is that under Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, father alone being the natural guardian is competent to file the suit. In support of his contentions, he has placed his reliance on Daneyi Gurumurti v. Raghu Podhan, AIR 1967 Orissa 68, Narain Singh v. Sapurna Kuer, AIR 1968 Pat 318; and Mohd. Sohrab Khan v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur, (1970 All LJ 288.

5. It is not disputed that no guardian of the minor had been appointed or declared by a Court. It is also not disputed that under Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, father was the natural guardian of the minor plaintiff. Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act enumerates the power of natural guardian and Section 111 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act prohibits a de facto guardian from dealing with the minor's property. Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act is in these words:

"8(1) The natural guardian of a Hindu minor has power subject to the provisions of this section, to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or for the realisation, protection or benefit of the minor's estate; but the guardian can in no case bind the minor by a personal covenant.

(2) The natural guardian shall not, without the previous permission of the court-

(a) mortgage or charge, or transfer by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise, any part of the immovable property of the minor, or

(b) lease any part of such property for a term exceeding five years or for a term extending more than one year beyond the date on which the minor will attain majority.

(3) Any disposal of immovable property by a natural guardian, in contravention of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), is voidable at the instance of the minor or any person claiming under him."

Under Section 8, therefore, power is given to the natural guardian to dispose of the minor's property, Section 11 reads as under-

"After the commencement of this Act, no person shall be entitled to dispose of, or deal with, the property of a Hindu minor merely on the ground of his or her being the de facto guardian of the minor."

Section 11, therefore, restricts the power of a de facto guardian from disposing of or dealing with the property of a Hindu minor.

6. Giving of notice of demand and filing the suit is not disposing of or dealing with the property. As a matter of fact Order XXXII, Rule 1 authorises the filing of the suit on behalf of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document