The requirement of a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act does not necessitate a precise description of the property for tenancy termination.

1. Smt. Kamala Narayan—the respondent herein in both petitions instituted separate suits (SC No.574 of 2019 and SC No.575 of 2019) for eviction against B.H.Sridhar—the petitioner in CRP No.365 of 2023 and Sri.Venkatesh T.— the petitioner in CRP No.187 of 2024.

2. She contended that she and her husband— T.C.Narayan had purchased the suit properties on 04.12.1980 under a registered sale deed from Chandrashekar and, thereafter, her husband—T.C.Narayan passed away on 10.10.2008. It was stated that after the death of her husband, all the municipal entries were changed in her favour and she had become the owner of said properties.

3. She also stated that T.Venkatesh was a tenant paying a monthly rent of Rs.2,425/- and B.H.Sridhar was paying a rent of Rs.2,550/-. She stated that she had terminated the tenancy by issuance of quit notices to both and had called upon both of them to hand over the possession and, instead of handing over the possession, they had issued a vague reply, as a result of which she was constrained to initiate eviction proceedings.

4. B.H.Sridhar and T.Venkatesh contested the suits that were filed against them.

5. B.H.Sridhar denied the jural relationship and stated that Chandrashekaraiah had inducted his father—B.P.Hari Rao as a tenant on monthly rent. He stated that Chandrashekaraiah had passed away in the year 1962 leaving behind his sons and daughters as legal heirs and since he had died intestate, Kamala Narayan was only collecting the rents from various tenants on behalf of the legal heirs of Chandrashekaraiah and, therefore, she was not the owner of the shop premises to which Hari Rao was inducted. It was stated that the B.P.Hari Rao—the original tenant i.e., the father of B.H.Sridhar also passed away leaving behind his sons as legal heirs, who had succeeded to the leasehold rights and, therefore, the issuance of notice under reply to B.H.Sridhar alone was improper.

6. B.H.Sridhar also stated that the name of Kamala Narayan and her husband were wrongly mentioned in the notice and that her children were staying in the United States of America.

A plea was also stated that Chandrashekaraiah had promised the tenants that he would sell the suit premises, but due to his sudden death, the sale did not fructify. He thus sought dismissal of the suit.

7. T.Venkatesh also contested the suit by filing a separate written statement. He also contended that the suit premises was owned by Chandrashekaraiah, who had leased it in favour of Thimmaiah—his father, and after the death of Thimmaiah, he was continuing the footwear business in the leased premises. He also stated that as per the instructions of Chandrashekaraiah, his father— Thimmaiah had started paying monthly rent to Kamala Narayan and she was acting as a rent collector on behalf of Chandrashekaraiah.

8. He stated that at no point in time did Kamala Narayan furnish any documents standing in her name with regard to the title that she possessed, and, therefore, he was not admitting that she was the owner of the suit premises and was recognizing her only as a rent collector.

He submitted that in view of the above said facts, Kamala Narayan had no authority to initiate proceedings against him.

9. In both the suits, Kamala Narayan filed applications for amending the plaints in respect of the property numbers mentioned in the schedules wherein she sought substitution of the “Old No.1606” with “Old No.1605”. These applications were allowed and additional written statements were permitted to be filed by the defendants.

10. In the additional written statement, both T.Venkatesh and B.H.Sridhar raised contentions that the quit notices that had been issued to them to terminate the tenancy was illegal since, admittedly, it was in respect of “Old No.1606” and by virtue of the fact that the suit was in fact filed in respect of the old No.1605. In other words, both of them contended that the tenancy had not been terminated as provided under the provisions of the Transfer of Property A