- (1.) THE appellant is ad mittedly the tenant and respondent the landlord of the accommodation in suit. Plaintiff-respondent, the landlord being a minor, a composite notice of demand and determination of rent was sent un der Registered cover to the appellant on 8-4-1967. This notice is said to have been served on 11-4-1967. As the ap pellant neither paid the rent nor vacat ed the shop, hence the suit out of which this appeal arises was filed.
(2.) THE suit was contested by the defendant-appellant on the ground that the natural guardian of the minor be ing the father who is alive, the mo ther was incompetent to act as next friend of the minor and in any event the notice by the mother, Smt. Chameli Devi on behalf of the minor was bad in law. It was also contended that pay ment of the arrears had been made to Choudhary Gur Dayal Singh, father of the minor. The receipt of the notice of demand and, determination of rent was also denied. The trial court held that Smt. Chameli Devi was competent to file the suit on behalf of the minor as his next friend, that a notice of ejectment and demand had been actually served and that the defendant had not paid the arrears either to the landlord or to Gur Dayal Singh. The suit of the plaintiff was accordingly decreed. In appeal the lower appellate court confirm ed the finding of the trial court, hence this Second Civil Appeal.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the ap pellant has reiterated that Smt. Cha meli Devi was neither competent to give notice nor was she competent to file the suit as next friend of the mi nor. His contention is that under Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, father alone being the natural guardian is com petent to file the suit. In support of his contentions, he has placed his re liance on Daneyi Gurumurti v. Raghu Podhan, AIR 1967 Orissa 68, Narain Singh v. Sapurna Kuer, AIR 1968 Pat 318; and Mohd. Sohrab Khan v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur, 1970 All LJ 288.;