NEMCHAND Vs. BHANWAR LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this defendants's appeal, arising out of a suit for ejectment and for recovery of arrears of rent, the only ground argued was that the tenant -appellant was not a defaulter in payment of rent and the decree for ejectment, passed solely on the ground of defaults in payment of rent, was erroneous and deserves to be set aside.

(2.) THE plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment of the defendant from the premises in dispute for all possible grounds, viz. The plaintiff required the suit premises reasonably andbonafide for his own use, the defendant had sublet the premises or had parted with possession thereof, the defendant had made material alterations in the premises and he had committed defaults in payment of rent. The plaintiff was unable to prove all 'other grounds for eviction alleged by him except that of defaults and the trial court decreed the suit for ejectment only on the ground of defaults in payment of rent. The first appellate court concurred with the finding recorded by the trial court on the question of defaults in payment of rent. Now in this second appeal, again the same question has been raised.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel further argued that a proper notice to quit was not served on the defendant. The decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in V. Dhampal Chettiar v. Yesoai Ammal : [1980]1SCR334 is a complete answer to this submission of the learned Counsel. It was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in that case that the determination of a lease, in accordance with the provisions of Transfer of the Property Act, is unnecessary and a mere surplusage, where a decree for eviction of a tenant is sought to be obtained under the Rent Control Act. Thus the absence of service of a valid notice terminating the tenancy is of no avail, when the decree for eviction is sought on one of the grounds specified in the Act.