The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of the Central Act of 2002 prevailed over the U.P. Act No. 24 of 1954, and the notice to quit served by the plaintiffs on the defendant was held to be valid.

Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma, J.

Heard Mohd. Arif Khan, Senior Advocate and Sri Anurag Narain, Counsel for the respondents.

2. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 26.8.2006 passed by the District Judge, Hardoi in S.C.C.Suit No. 4 of 2005, Hardoi Zila Sahkari Bank Limited [ in short referred to as the 'Revisionist-Bank] has preferred this revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.

3. Draped in brevity, the facts giving rise to the instant revision are that one Smt. Manno Rani Gupta wife of Dr Suresh Chandra Gupta, the initial owner and landlady of House No. 47, Mohalla Boarding House, Hardoi, transferred the disputed house in favour of respondents-plaintiffs through a registered sale deed dated 27.3.2002. Therefore, the respondents-plaintiffs became the landlords of the disputed house. Revisionist-Bank used to transfer the rent payable in the Saving Bank Account No. 7341 of the defendants-respondents every month. A notice to quit was sent by the respondents-plaintiffs to the revisionist-defendant under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act on 4.11.2004, which was served upon the revisionist on 5.11.2004. When after expiry of the period indicated in the notice, the premises were not vacated by the revisionist-Bank, the respondents preferred a suit for ejectment of the defendant from the disputed accommodation and also claimed pendent-lite and future damages at the rate of Rs. 2588/- per month, if the same has not already been credited in their Saving Bank Account lying in the Revisionist-Bank.

4. The Court below framed the following questions for determination:-

1.Whether the notice to quit is not valid?

2.Whether the notice dated 4.11.2004 stood waived?

3.Whether the tenancy in favour of the defendant is continuing for another term of five years from 5.7.2003?

4.Whether the defendant has acquired the status of statutory tenant on the basis of the principle of holding over of the tenancy?

5.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to any other relief?

5. The Court below while deciding the question no.1 came to the conclusion that the provisions of the Central Act of 2002 will prevail over the U.P. Act No. 24 of 1954. Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India clearly provides that in such a situation of repugnancy, the law made by the Parliament shall prevail notwithstanding the fact that the earlier law made by the State Legislature had received the assent of the President. Consequently, the court below held that the provision of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act as amended by the Act of 2002 will govern the notice to quit served by the plaintiffs on the defendant. Therefore, 15 days time given in the notice to vacate the disputed accommodation is valid.

The court below after giving detailed reasons decreed the suit in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs by the impugned judgment and order dated 26.8.2006 and the Revisionist-Bank was directed to vacant the premises within a month.

Hence the Bank has filed the instant Revision.

6. Counsel for the revisionist has argued with vehemence that Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act as amended by U.P. Act No. XXIV of 1954 has its application to the State of U.P. and provides thirty days notice for terminating the tenancy which having not been repealed by Act No. 3 of 2003 and as such the court below erred in holding that 15 days time given in the notice to be valid.

7. It has next been argued that both the Parliament and State legislature are competent to enact laws in respect to the matter enumerated in List III -concurrent list and the laws made by the State unless repealed, has got its application. The Transfer of Property (Amendment) Act 2002 came into force with effect from 31.12.2002. This Act had not repealed Section 106 of U.P. Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendment) Act whereby the words "fifteen days" were substituted by the words "thirty days" for the purposes of notice. Thus the tenancy which has been held by the Trial Court to