Skip to content


Ranjit Singh Vs. Sudhir Singh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSecond Appeal No. 205 of 1980
Judge
Reported in1980(1)DRJ191; 1980RLR645
ActsDelhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 14(1)
AppellantRanjit Singh
RespondentSudhir Singh
Advocates: S.K. Tiwari and; K.P. Kapoor, Advs
Excerpt:
delhi rent control act 1958 : - section 14(1)(a) : notice of demand is to be served is the manner mentioned as the 2nd part of section 106, t.p. act. the first part of section 106 t.p. act is not required to be complied with. for termination of tenancy no notice is required. - - landlord filed an application for eviction of the tenant u/s 14(1)(a) delhi control act, 1958 (called the act). an order u/s 15(1) was passed which the tenant failed to comply and thereforee an eviction order was passed by the controller on 4 12.79 and it was confirmed by the tribunal on 25.4.80. the contention of the tenant is that the notice of demand does not comply with requirements ofs......it is not necessary to terminate the tenancy in view of supreme court judgment in v. dhanapal v. yasodai ammal air. 1979, sc. 1975: 1979 raj l.r. 472. it w..s thereforee unnecessary for the landlord to comply with 1st part ofs. 106, t.p.a. the 2nd part provides that it should be in writing and signed. it further provides the manner in which it is to be served on the tenant. s. 14(1)(a) of the act provides in what manner notice of demand for arrears of rent is to be served. the clause provides that it should be served in the manner mentioned in s. 106 of t.p.a., 1882 s. 14(1)(a) does not refer to the 1st part of s. 106 t.p.a. pertaining to termination to tenancy. thus a notice of demand is to be served in the manner mentioned in the 2nd part of s. 106, t.p.a. there is no force in the.....
Judgment:

Sultan Singh, J.

(1) The appellant is tenant, while respondent is landlord. Landlord filed an application for eviction of the tenant U/S 14(1)(a) Delhi Control Act, 1958 (called the Act). An order U/S 15(1) was passed which the tenant failed to comply and thereforee an eviction order was passed by the Controller on 4 12.79 and it was confirmed by the Tribunal on 25.4.80. The contention of the tenant is that the notice of demand does not comply with requirements ofS. 106 of the T.P. Act, 1882 read with S. 14(1)(a) of the Act [Sections 106, T.P.A. & S. 14(1)(a) are then reproduced.]

(2) S. 106 of T.P.A. is in two parts 1st part refers to the manner in which tenancies for agricultural, manufacturing & other purposes are to be terminated Accordingly agricultural and manufacturing tenancies are to be terminated by 6 months notice expiring with the end of the year of tenancy while tenancies for other purposes are to be terminated by 15 days notice expiring with the end of the month of tenancy. Again such notice is subject to contract between parties. As far as rent control matters are concerned, it is not necessary to terminate the tenancy in view of Supreme Court judgment in V. Dhanapal v. Yasodai Ammal AIR. 1979, SC. 1975: 1979 Raj L.R. 472. It w..s thereforee unnecessary for the landlord to comply with 1st part ofS. 106, T.P.A. The 2nd part provides that it should be in writing and signed. It further provides the manner in which it is to be served on the tenant. S. 14(1)(a) of the Act provides in what manner notice of demand for arrears of rent is to be served. The clause provides that it should be served in the manner mentioned in S. 106 of T.P.A., 1882 S. 14(1)(a) does not refer to the 1st part of S. 106 T.P.A. pertaining to termination to tenancy. Thus a notice of demand is to be served in the manner mentioned in the 2nd part of S. 106, T.P.A. There is no force in the contention raised by the tenant that a notice of demand should also comply with requirement of the 1st part of S. 106, T. P. A.

(3) Appeal dismissed with costs.


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