The mandatory requirements of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act must be complied with for the termination of tenancy.

JUDGMENT :

This Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 29/2/2020 passed by Seventh Additional District Judge, Guna in Regular Civil Appeal No.52/2016, thereby affirming the judgment and decree dated 30/4/2016 passed by Fourth Civil Judge, Class-II, Guna in Regular Civil Suit No.4A/2015, by which a decree of possession, arrears of rent & mesne profits has been passed against the appellants.

2. The appellants have proposed the following substantial questions of law:-

"(1) Whether the suit filed by plaintiffs/respondents against defendants/appellants is maintainable in the light of section 3 of M.P. Accommodation Control Act 1961 when specifically plaintiffs are the local body constituted under M.P. State Acts ?

(2) Whether, learned both the Courts below erred in substantial error of law in decreeing the suit of plaintiffs/respondents without proving the case by them as per section 106 of Transfer of Property Act 1882 ?

(3) Whether plaintiffs/respondents have terminated the lease/tenancy according to section 106 of Transfer of Property Act 1882 ?

(4) Whether learned both the courts below erred in decreeing the suit filed by plaintiffs/respondents when plaintiffs concealed about arrear of rent due upon defendants/appellants ?

or

In the facts and circumstances of the case this Hon'ble High Court deems fit to frame any other substantial question of law, that may kindly be framed."

3. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that the respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction under Section 12 (1) (a) of the MP Accommodation Control Act on the ground that the suit shop was let out to the father of the appellants and after his death, the appellants are jointly carrying out their business in the suit premises. The tenancy of the father of the appellants was verbal and on monthly basis. Earlier the plaintiffs/respondents had filed a suit for eviction which was on the ground of arrears of rent. The said suit was dismissed with a finding that the plaintiffs/respondents have failed to prove that the appellants are in arrears of rent. However, the appellants were held to be the tenants of the respondents/plaintiffs at the monthly rent of Rs.168/-. It was pleaded that in spite of that, the appellants are not making payment of rent and accordingly, a registered notice was sent thereby terminating the tenancy as well as for handing over the possession. The said registered notice was served on the appellants/defendants which was duly replied by them, but in spite of that neither the vacant possession has been delivered nor the arrears of rent have been paid. It was further pleaded that the appellants are regularly utilizing the shop in question. It was further pleaded that the shop in question is the property of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Guna and the appellants are in illegal possession of shop no.6. Thus, a suit was also filed for recovery of arrears of rent, for vacant possession as well as for mesne profit at the rate of Rs.300/- per month till the possession is delivered.

4. The appellants/defendants filed their written statement and admitted that the plaintiff no.1 is the President and the plaintiff no.2 is the Secretary of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Guna. It was further pleaded that the appellants are in possession of shop no.6 being the tenant of the plaintiffs. It was further admitted that the appellants are in possession of the suit shop on the monthly rent of Rs.168/-. However, it was claimed that the suit has been filed in an illegal manner and the same is not maintainable in the Civil Court. The burden is on the plaintiffs to prove that the appellants have not paid the rent. The receipt of registered notice sent by the plaintiffs was also admitted and it was also pleaded that the appellants/defendants have duly responded to the said notice. The appellants denied that by virtue of the notice, their tenancy was terminated. It was further pleaded that the plaintiffs have no right