Skip to content


R.N. Srivastava Vs. Ghan Shyam Das and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 1179 of 1962
Judge
Reported inAIR1964All18
ActsTransfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 106; Uttar Pradesh Rent Control and Eviction Act - Sections 7(1)
AppellantR.N. Srivastava
RespondentGhan Shyam Das and anr.
Advocates:Jagat Dhari Pande, Adv.
DispositionRevision dismissed
Excerpt:
.....continues to subsist in law and thus the tenant is liable for the rent even though he has served a notice on the district magistrate under rent control and eviction act, 1947. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section..........july, 1961, he gave notice under clause (a) of subsection (1) of section 7 of the u. p. control of rent and eviction act to the district magistrate. no notice for the determination of the tenancy under section 106 of the transfer of property act was, however, given to the landlord with the result that the landlord treated the tenancy of the present applicant still subsisting. it was on that basis that he filed the suit for recovery of arrears of rent.3. the contention on behalf of the applicant was that it is section 7 (1) of the control of rent and eviction act which lays down the law for determination of a lease at the instance of the tenant and that the applicant having given this notice to the district magistrate, his tenancy should be deemed to have been determined in accordance.....
Judgment:
ORDER

S.D. Singh, J.

1. This is an application in revision arising out of a small cause suit for recovery of arrears of rent. The applicant was a tenant in an accommodation which belonged to Ghan Shyam Das, opposite party No. 1. The rent for July, August, September and October, 1961, not having been paid, Ghan Shyam Das filed the suit for the recovery of arrears of rent against the applicant Rule N. Srivastava and also against Amminuddin Siddiqi, opposite party No. 2, who is said to be a sub-tenant in the same accommodation. The trial Court dismissed the suit, but it was decreed in revision by the Additional District Judge, Allahabad.

2. The point involved in the case is a simple one. The applicant's contention is that when he vacated the house on 1st July, 1961, he gave notice under Clause (a) of Subsection (1) of Section 7 of the U. P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act to the District Magistrate. No notice for the determination of the tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was, however, given to the landlord with the result that the landlord treated the tenancy of the present applicant still subsisting. It was on that basis that he filed the suit for recovery of arrears of rent.

3. The contention on behalf of the applicant was that it is Section 7 (1) of the Control of Rent and Eviction Act which lays down the law for determination of a lease at the instance of the tenant and that the applicant having given this notice to the District Magistrate, his tenancy should be deemed to have been determined in accordance with law. This contention is, however, not correct. Section 7 (1) of the Control of Rent and Eviction Act has nothing to do with the determination of a lease. It continues to be governed by the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. It has been held in number of cases, though in connection with the application of Section 3 of the Control of Rent and Eviction Act, that even though the landlord may be entitled to file a suit for the ejectment of the tenant under any one of the Clauses (a) to (g) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the aforesaid Act, he will have to determine the lease under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act first. On the same reasoning even the tenant, who wants to vacate the premises, will have to determine the lease in accordance with the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, by giving 30 days' notice to the landlord, and also vacating the accommodation within the same period. Even sending a copy of the letter which the tenant may have addressed to the District Magistrate to the landlord would not be enough.

If notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is not given, then, even though the District Magistrate may have been intimated under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Control of Rent and Eviction Act that the premises have been vacated, the tenancy will continue to subsist in law, and the tenant will consequently be liable for the payment of rent. In this case there was also another reason why the tenancy could not be said to have been determined. The premises were sub-let by the applicant and the sub-tenant has continued to be in possession of the premises sub-let to him.

4. The Additional District Judge, therefore, took the correct view when he held that the defendant-applicant was liable to pay rent for the four months.

5. The application in revision has no force and is consequently dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //