The notice to quit must be construed in a common-sense way without taking a hyper-critical view, and a unilateral document signed by only one party could establish the landlord-tenant relationship without requiring registration.

Hon'ble Devendra Pratap Singh,J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This petition is directed against orders dated 22.2.1985 and 20.11.1997 in proceedings under Small Causes Courts Act.

3. The petitioner landlord instituted Suit No. 571 of 1978 before the Judge Small Causes for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment of the respondent tenant. It was filed inter alia with the allegation that the disputed shop was Joint Hindu Family property which was being managed by the father of the petitioner as 'Karta' who let it out to the respondent tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 70/- per month. However, a partition of all the properties of the Joint Hindu Family took place through a partition decree on 1.1.1976 and the disputed shop fell into the exclusive share of the landlord who vide notice dated 10.11.1977 determined the tenancy and raised a demand of arrears of rent w.e.f 1.1.1976. The tenant failed to pay the arrears or to quit after the notice period forcing him to file the suit.

4. After exchange of pleadings the suit was partly decreed for arrears of rent with a finding of default but ejectment was denied on the ground that the notice was invalid on the ground that the arrears were not quantified and the period within which it was to be paid was also not disclosed. Aggrieved, the petitioner landlord filed SCC Revision No. 31 of 1985 claiming eviction while the respondent tenant preferred SCC Revision No. 25 of 1985 against decree of arrears of rent. The revisional court allowed the revision of the tenant and dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner landlord vide order dated 20.11.1987 and thus, this petition by the landlord.

5. The revisional court found that since the rent deed was not a registered document therefore, it cannot be said that there was any landlord-tenant relationship. It further went on to hold that in the notice neither the arrears were disclosed nor period of payment was mentioned, therefore, the notice was also bad. It also found that the notice was never served on the tenant.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the courts below have erred in law in taking a very hyper technical view in holding the notice as invalid and though the notice mentions Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, but in fact it fulfilled the twin requirements of Section 20(2) of the Act.

7. A notice to quit under the Act is slightly different than a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. In a notice under the Act there should be a clear cut demand for payment of arrears of rent which should be for more than four months and on failure to pay the arrears he is rendered liable for eviction. Thus, in a notice under the Act suit for eviction can only be filed if the arrears have not paid within 30 days of receipt of the notice. However, in a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act the tenancy can also be terminated in the presentii.

8. A copy of the notice dated 10.11.1977 has been filed as Annexure-1 which discloses in paragraph 3 that the respondent is a tenant at the rent of Rs. 70/- per month. In paragraph 4 it is stated that the tenant is a very bad pay master and has not paid rent w.e.f. 1.1.1976. In paragraph 5 a demand for payment of entire arrears of rent has been raised while in paragraph 6 it is stated that the tenant may quit after expiry of the period of notice. The period of notice provided under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 20(2) of the Act is 30 days. The notice duly mentions about the statutory period provided under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and it also raises a demand for rent at the rate of Rs. 70/- per month from 1.1.1976 which is for a period of more than four months. The Apex Court in the case of Bhagabandas Agarwalla Vs. Bhagwandas Kanu and otehrs [1977 (2) SCC 646], after relying upon several decisions has held that a notice to quit must be construed not with a desire to find faults in it but