AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The learned counsel on behalf of the revisionist/tenant has assailed the judgment and order of eviction and arrears of rent dated 13.02.2017 on the ground that notice of termination of tenancy under Section 106 Transfer of Property Act (herein after referred as ''Act'') was of 15 days while such Section of the Act is opened with the language "in the absence of a contract or local law or usage to the contrary, a lease.....of immovable property for the purpose other than agricultural or manufacturing shall be deemed to be a lease from month to month terminable on the part of either lessor or lessee, by fifteen days'' notice". This fifteen days'' notice was replaced for the words ''thirty days'' by the U.P. Act No. XXIV of 1954, where the provision of 106 of the Act by itself envisaged that if there is any contrary local law then such local law shall be effective rather than this central law.
In the present case, since only 15 days'' notice was given, hence it was not in accordance with the provision of Section 106 T.P. Act. Therefore, the entire proceedings before the Trial Judge are vitiated. This argument of the learned counsel of the revisionist has been refuted by the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent
that in the T.P. Act itself came into force way back in 1882. There was the provision of 15 days'' notice in that Act, but by the U.P. Amendment Act, as indicated above, it was substituted by the words 30 days'' notice. Thereafter again by the Central Act of 2003, 15 days'' notice has been incorporated. So, if any province wants to override amendment done by the Central Act of 2003, then such province shall have to introduce the amendment after the incorporation of the amendment by the Central Act .
I accept the contention of learned counsel of the respondent and of the view that 15 days'' notice shall be deemed to the law of the day until and unless it is overrided by another provincial Act.
That apart, the learned counsel of the respondent has drawn the attention of this Court towards the Section 106(3) of the Act, which reads as under:
(3) A notice under sub-section (1) shall not be deemed to be invalid merely because the period mentioned therein falls short of the period specified under that sub-section, where a suit or proceeding is filed after the expiry of the period mentioned in that sub-section.
In the present litigation between the parties notice was given on 02.7.2014, it was served on 03.7.2014, but the suit was filed on 26.9.2014, i.e. after more than two and a half months of service of the notice. Therefore, in view of the provisions, as have been highlighted above, the notice issued under sub-section 1 of Section 106 only for the period of 15 days shall not be deemed to be invalid. Besides, the attention of the Court has also been drawn on the ground mentioned under the heading ''F'' wherein it has been pleaded that Shri Praveen Jain was wrongly elected as the Secretary of the plaintiff institution, hence he was not a
competent person to file the suit. This controversy has already been dealt with by this Court vide its order dated 05.7.2016 in Civil Revision No. 96/2016, wherein it was held that such a plea has no relevance while deciding the controversy of eviction of the tenant on the ground of arrears of rent.
All total, I am not convinced on the grounds present in the civil revision. It is dismissed at the threshold.
Learned counsel of the revisionist has prayed that some time be given to vacate the demised premises. This request is acceded by this Court and held that if the revisionist/tenant furnishes an undertaking within a week before the Trial Judge, then he will be permitted to vacate the building within three months from today.