Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
J.J. Munir, J.
Govind Saran - Revisionist
Versus
Km. Shubhi Mishra – Opposite Party
S.C.C. Revision No. 125 of 2014
Decided On : 14-03-2022
Ejectment - Tenant's Revision - Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 - Section 25 - U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 - Sections 106, 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the validity of the notice to quit under Section 106 of the Act of 1882, the applicability of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, and the relief against eviction under Section 114. The court held that the notice to quit effectively determined the tenancy and that the provisions of Section 114 providing for relief against eviction did not apply in this case.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought ejectment of the defendant-tenant from a shop for non-payment of rent. The defendant denied default and claimed that the notice to quit was invalid and that he was entitled to relief against eviction under Section 114 of the Act of 1882.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the notice to quit effectively determined the tenancy and that the provisions of Section 114 providing for relief against eviction did not apply in this case.
Issues: Validity of the notice to quit, applicability of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, and entitlement to relief against eviction under Section 114 of the Act of 1882.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the notice to quit effectively determined the tenancy and that the provisions of Section 114 providing for relief against eviction did not apply in this case.
Final Decision: The revision was dismissed, and the defendant was granted six months to vacate the shop, subject to depositing the entire arrears of rent and mesne profits within a month and furnishing an undertaking to hand over peaceful possession of the shop to the plaintiff.
JUDGMENT :
1. This is a tenant's revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (for short “the Act of 1887”), questioning a decree for ejectment, besides recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits.
2. S.C.C. Suit No.15 of 2012 was instituted on behalf of the plaintiff-landlady, Km. Shubhi Mishra, then a minor aged about 16 years through her father, Dr. Pramod Kumar Mishra, acting as her next friend. This suit was instituted before the District Judge of Pilibhit sitting as the Judge, Small Cause Court, against the defendant-tenant, Govind Saran, seeking the defendant's ejectment from a shop situate in Mohalla Desh Nagar, District Hospital Road, Pilibhit, details whereof are given at the foot of the plaint, giving rise to the suit. Besides ejectment, a decree for recovery of a sum of Rs.41,433/-as arrears of rent was also sought. A further decree for recovery of mesne profits in the sum of Rs.2000/-with effect from the date of determination of the tenancy until the date of the suit, worked out at the rate of Rs.250/-per day, besides Rs.1500/-as costs of the notice, was also claimed. Apart from the aforesaid items of the claim, a decree for recovery of mesne profits at the rate last mentioned was claimed for the period pendente lite and future.
3. The suit was instituted on behalf of the plaintiff-landlady (for short, 'the plaintiff') alleging that the shop in question, which shall hereinafter be referred to as the 'demised shop', was let out on her behalf by her father to the defendant-revisionist (for short, 'the defendant') in the year 2008 for a period of eleven months. The rate of rent was Rs.5500/- per month. The tenancy was month-to-month, commencing on the first day of each English calendar month. The provisions of The Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short “U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972”) did not govern the tenancy. The defendant committed default in payment of rent w.e.f. February, 2012 and continued to do so, extending false promises to pay. He avoided paying the due rent on one pretext or the other that he came up with. Despite repeat demands to pay his outstanding rent, the defendant did not comply. In the circumstances, the plaintiff caused a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short, “the Act of 1882”) to be issued to the defendant on 13.08.2012, calling upon the defendant to pay the entire arrears of rent and determining the tenancy on expiry of a period of thirty days of the receipt of notice. The defendant was also called upon to vacate the demised shop and hand over possession thereof on the expiry of the notice period. The notice was dispatched at the correct residential address of the defendant as well as his business address by registered post. The notice was duly served upon the defendant personally on 16.08.2012. The defendant's tenancy stood determined w.e.f. 16.09.2012. Despite termination of his tenancy, the defendant did not vacate the demised shop or remit the arrears of rent. It was asserted that the defendant owed the plaintiff a sum of Rs.41,433/-in arrears of rent from 01.02.2012 till 16.09.2012. A sum of Rs.2000/-was claimed to be due towards mesne profits from 17.09.2012 till the date of institution of the suit, worked out at the rate of Rs.250/-per day, besides Rs.1500/-on account of fee and expenses of the notice served.
4. The suit was instituted on 24.09.2012 and a summons returnable on 24.11.2012 was issued to the defendant.
5. A written statement was filed on behalf of the defendant, admitting himself to be a tenant in the demised shop at the rate of Rs.5500/-per month. It was, however, pleaded that rent in the year 2007 was Rs.4500/-per month, but in deference to wishes of the plaintiff's father, the rent was enhanced to Rs.5500/-. It was claimed that until 30.06.2012, rent was paid to the plaintiff's father, who despite demand, did not issue any receipt. The plaintiff's father would
The validity of a notice to quit under Section 106 of the Act of 1882 and the applicability of relief against eviction under Section 114.
The statutory tenant retains rights against eviction despite termination of a contractual tenancy without a court order, as established in prior Supreme Court rulings that override lower court interp....
Validity of termination notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and determination of mense profits.
A valid notice to quit under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is mandatory to terminate a tenancy, regardless of original lease terms dispensing with such notice.
A valid notice under section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act must provide a full month’s notice expiring with the month of tenancy for eviction to be lawful.
A valid demand notice under Section 15(2) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act must specify the amount due and be addressed to the tenant; failure to do so invalidates eviction proceedings.
A valid demand notice under Section 15(2) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act is essential before eviction on grounds of rent default; failure to comply renders the suit non-maintainable.
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
