The termination of tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is not dependent on the landlord's bona-fide need or the choice of eviction from a tenement.

JUDGMENT :

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, J.

1. On 16th April 2015, a Suit, being Suit No. 5 of 2015, Virendra Singh Tomar vs. Karamveer Singh Rajput, was instituted by the landlord/respondent herein, invoking the provisions of Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, praying for vacation of the tenement shop, which has been described therein, in the plaint, the tenancy of which, has been terminated by the landlord/respondent, by issuance of the Notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, as it was issued on 12th March 2013, which has been admittedly served upon the tenant/revisionist herein on 13th March 2013.

2. The proceedings of SCC Suit, as instituted on 16th April 2015, was contested by the revisionist by filing a written statement, and in the written statement thus filed on 17th August 2015, the ground taken therein by the revisionist was to the effect that the so-called need, which has been expressed by the landlord/respondent in his plaint under Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, for engaging his son, who was alleged to be working as Junior Engineer, working on contractual basis in the Public Works Department, he submits, that the said need, as expressed by the landlord/respondent in the proceedings under Section 15, since not being bona-fide, it will not be treated that the landlord/respondent, had approached the Court with clean hands, by filing a proceeding under Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, for the reason being, that there existed no bona-fide need, owing to the engagement of the landlord’s son as pleaded in Para 3 of the written statement.

3. On exchange of the pleadings, learned trial Court has framed the following issues:

“1. Whether the rent of disputed shop is Rs. 2000/- p.m. as alleged by the plaintiff or Rs. 1200/- p.m. as alleged by the defendant?

2. Whether plaintiff has terminated the tenancy of the defendant vide notice dated 12.3.2013? If so, its effect?

3. Whether notice dated 12.3.2013 is illegal, as alleged by the defendant?

4. Relief, if any?”

4. In fact, the prime issue, which would be of consideration was the exercise of powers by the landlord/respondent of terminating a tenancy; by issuance of notices under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. In fact, the notice, which was issued on 12th March 2013, was a simplicitor termination of the tenancy, from the disputed shop, which has been sought to be construed by the learned counsel for the revisionist, as if since the landlord/respondent, has given an expression in the application or even as well as in the notice, that he has to engage his son, is a misnomer, because according to the revisionist, the son of the landlord/respondent was already engaged with the Public Works Department. Hence, the learned counsel for the revisionist contends, that since the landlord /respondent, has not come up with clean hands, the plaint ought not to have been decreed by the learned Provincial Small Cause Courts.

5. The language of Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, under which the proceedings were drawn, it only contemplates that on an issuance of notice of terminating the tenancy. It doesn't, at any stage, either by virtue of U.P. Amendment which was carried and made applicable in the State of Uttarakhand as a consequence of its adoption under Section 87 of the Reorganization Act. The proviso to sub Section (2) of Section 15, as it was applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh, now in the State of Uttarakhand too also, it only contemplates an eviction of a lessee from a building after “determination of his lease.”

6. The determination herein would be, a determination of tenancy as a consequence of the notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, where it has been left with an exclusive prerogative with the landlord/respondent, to terminate the tenancy, after giving a prior notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.

7. A conjoint reading of Section