( 1 ) THE petitioner in this civil revision application was the original defendant. A decree for eviction was passed against him in respect of the suit premises on the ground that the opponent who had purchased the premises on 5-9-1956 had required them reasonably and bona fide for his occupation and also on the ground that the petitionertenant who was a monthly tenant was in arrears of rent for a period of six months or more and he had neglected to make payment thereof before the expiration of one month after notice referred to in sec. 12 (2) of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act. The decree passed by the trial Court was confirmed in appeal by the Assistant Judge for Himatnagar at Ahmedabad and hence this revision application.

( 2 ) THE points contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner will be dealt with seriatim. The first contention is that no notice had been given as required by section 12 (2) of the Act because a notice was sent by registered-post and was returned unserved. It is contended that in view of the rulings in Vaman v. Khaderao 37 Bombay L. R. 376 at p. 384 and Jugalkishore Jodhmal v. The Bombay Revenue Tribunal 60 Bom. L. R. 1075 at p. 1082 it cannot be treated as a valid notice. In my opinion this question even if it is a question of law as been dealt with by both the Courts below and they have found that the notice had been validly given and this finding even if it is wrong cannot be interfered with in revision.

( 3 ) IT is next contended that in the notice which was given on 2-1-57 the tenant had been asked to vacate the premises on 10-1-57 and therefore the requisite period as stated in sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act had not been given in the notice. It is therefore contended that the notice is bad. The Act is a special Act which over-rides in some respects the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is referred to in section 12 (2) of the Act only with regard to the manner of service of the notice and not with regard to the nature of the notice. The Act is a special Act and has provided for a particular manner of service of the notice. The notice referred to in section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is therefore not necessary. However the notice referred to in sub-section (2) of sec. 12 of the Act must be served in the manner referred to in section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act namely in the manner stated in the second part of sec. 106 of the T. P. Act which reads as follows :-EVERY notice under this section must be in writing signed by or on behalf of the person giving it and either be sent by post to the party who is intended to be bound by it or be tendered or delivered personally to such party or to one of his family or servants at his residence or (if such tender or delivery is not practicable affixed to a conspicuous part of the properly.

( 4 ) THIS part of sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is referred to in sec. 12 (2) of the Act. It is not necessary that the requirements of the first part of section 106 of the T. P. Act namely that a lease should be terminated by 15 days notice expiring with the end of a month of the tenancy need be complied with because the tenancy is a statutory tenancy and not a tenancy under the Transfer of Property Act.

( 5 ) THE next contention is that in this case on the date of the notice the rent was in arrears for 3 months and 23 days and not six months. It is therefore contended that an order for eviction should not have been passed under sec. 12 (3) (a ). Section 12 (3) (a) of the Act reads as follows:where the rent is payable by the month and there is no dispute regarding the amount of standard rent or permitted increases if such rent or increases are in arrears for a period of six months or more and the tenant neglects to make payment thereof until the expiration of the period of one month afte