Punjab & Haryana HC: Tenant Waives Challenge to S.106 TPA Notice by Failing to Reply; Prior S.6 SRA Suit on Different Cause of Action No Bar to Eviction - 2025-05-17

Punjab & Haryana High Court: Tenant's Failure to Contest Eviction Notice Deemed Waiver, Prior Suit No Bar to Possession Claim

Chandigarh : The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in a significant ruling on landlord-tenant disputes, has held that a tenant who fails to reply to or object to a notice of tenancy termination under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA) at the earliest opportunity is estopped from challenging its validity later. The Court further clarified that a prior suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA) for a different portion of the property and based on a distinct cause of action does not bar a subsequent suit for possession based on title.

The judgment was delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ramendra Jain in the case of Ram Chand vs. Mangat Pal (RSA 586 / 2018), dismissing the tenant's Regular Second Appeal against concurrent eviction orders from lower courts.

Background of the Dispute

The case originated from a suit filed by Mangat Pal (landlord/plaintiff) seeking possession of a residential house located in Bassi Pathana , District SAS Nagar (Mohali), from his tenant, Ram Chand (defendant/appellant). The landlord claimed the property was rented about 17 years prior, with rent arrears accumulating since November 2007. He also cited personal necessity and alleged that the tenant had encroached upon an additional portion of the house. A legal notice dated April 16, 2012, under Section 106 of the TPA, was purportedly served to terminate the lease and demand vacant possession.

The tenant, Ram Chand , contested the suit, denying the service and validity of the Section 106 TPA notice. He further argued that the suit was barred under Order II Rule II of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) because the landlord had previously filed a suit for immediate possession of a part of the property under Section 6 of the SRA, which was later withdrawn.

The Trial Court (vide judgment dated September 20, 2017) and the First Appellate Court (Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar (Mohali), vide judgment dated January 16, 2018) both ruled in favor of the landlord, ordering the tenant's eviction. This led to the present Regular Second Appeal before the High Court.

Key Arguments and High Court's Findings

The High Court meticulously examined the arguments presented by both parties:

1. Validity and Waiver of Notice under Section 106 TPA

The tenant-appellant contended that the termination notice was invalid. However, the Court noted the tenant's admission of tenancy over the entire suit property. More crucially, the Court found that the tenant had not replied to the notice nor challenged its validity at the first available opportunity.

Justice Ramendra Jain , invoking the principle of estoppel and waiver, cited Supreme Court precedents:

M/s Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd vs. M/s Jasbir Singh Chadha (HUF) & Anr, (2011) 2 RCR (Civil) 402

Parwati Bai vs. Smt. Radhika, 2003(2) RCR (Rent) 199 S.C.

The Court observed: > "In our view, the respondent ought to have replied to the notice at the first available opportunity, which they failed to do so. It amounts to waiver on their part to challenge the invalidity or infirmity of the quit notice including the ownership issue raised therein... An objection as to invalidity or insufficiency of notice under Section 106 TPA should be taken at the earliest, else it would be deemed to have been waived even if there exists one."

The High Court concluded that the tenant, by his conduct, was estopped from raising objections to the notice at a later stage. The Court also noted that the notice and its postal receipts (Exs. P1 and P2) were duly proven on record.

2. Maintainability of Suit and Bar under Order II Rule II CPC

The tenant argued that the present suit was barred as the landlord had previously filed a suit under Section 6 of the SRA for possession of a portion of the property, which was subsequently withdrawn without permission to file a fresh suit.

The High Court rejected this contention, emphasizing the distinct nature and cause of action of the two suits: * The earlier suit under Section 6 SRA was a summary proceeding for immediate restoration of possession of only a part of the property, based on alleged recent dispossession. * The present suit was filed for possession of the entire tenanted premises based on the landlord's title and termination of the lease agreement, a remedy akin to that under Section 5 of the SRA.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and others Vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner and others, (2004) 3 Supreme Court Cases 137 , and stated: > "Admittedly, the previous suit was filed under Section 6 of the 1963 Act, for seeking immediate possession of some part of the property in question within six months of its unauthorized occupation by the appellant-defendant and the same was thus based on a separate and distinct cause of action; whereas the present suit for possession came to be filed by the respondent2 plaintiff while claiming himself to be its owner2lessor, under Section 5 of the 1963 Act. Accordingly, the cause of action in both the suits being separate; the present suit for possession was not hit by Order II Rule II CPC."

3. Concurrent Findings of Fact

The High Court also acknowledged the concurrent findings of fact by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court regarding the landlord-tenant relationship and the termination of tenancy. It reiterated the limited scope of interference in a Regular Second Appeal unless perversity or misinterpretation of evidence is demonstrated, which was not found in this case.

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court found no illegality or perversity in the judgments of the courts below. Consequently, the Regular Second Appeal filed by the tenant, Ram Chand , was dismissed, upholding the eviction decree.

This judgment underscores critical aspects of eviction proceedings:

* Timely Objection is Key : Tenants must raise objections to termination notices promptly; failure to do so can be construed as a waiver, estopping them from later challenges.

* Distinct Causes of Action : A summary suit for immediate possession under Section 6 of the SRA, especially concerning a different portion or based purely on prior possession, does not necessarily bar a subsequent comprehensive suit for possession based on title and lawful termination of tenancy.

The ruling provides important clarifications for legal practitioners and litigants involved in property disputes, particularly concerning the procedural and substantive requirements for eviction.