- (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of suit No. 9 of 1976 filed in the court of Judge Small Causes Court, Ranikhet. Opposite party No. 2 Tej Narain is the plaintiff. Opposite party No. 3 Gauri Datt Pandey is the chief tenant and the petitioner is the sub-tenant. Opposite party No. 2 filed the suit for recovery of arrears of rent for the period from November, 1975 to 24th March, 1976, and for possession of the tenanted accommodation after eviction of the defendant-petitioner.
(2.) THE case of the opposite party No. 2 was that he is the Karta of the Joint Hindu Family and landlord of shop No. 484 situate in Sadar Bazar, Ranikhet of which the opposite party No. 3 is the chief tenant. It was pleaded that inspite of notice of demand having been sent to the opposite party No. 3 he did not pay the rent and as such he committed default. It was further pleaded that the shop had been sub-let to the petitioner without the permission of the landlord and as such the opposite party No. 3 was also liable for ejectment. THE Judge Small Causes Court by its judgment dated 25th April, 1977 decreed the suit. THE petitioner thereafter filed a revision under Section 25 of the Small Causes Court Act before the District Judge, Almora. THE revision was dismissed by the District Judge, Almora on 19th October, 1978. Against the said decision a revision was filed in this Court being Civil Revision No. 4279 of 1978. This revision was dismissed as not maintainable in August, 1979 in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court. THEreafter the petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the orders passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court as well as the District Judge, Almora. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that even if the allegations of the plaintiff opposite party No. 2 are accepted, then too, he could not have been held to be a defaulter under Section 20 (2) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, U. P. Act XIII of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and as such the ejectment decree passed against the petitioner is manifestly erroneous. The notice of demand was given to the Chief-tenant opposite party No. 3 on 17th February, 1976 claiming arrears of rent from November, 1975 to 23-2-1976. Section 20 (2) (a) of the Act clearly provides that a suit for eviction of tenant can be filed if the tenant is in arrears of rent for not less than 4 months and has failed to pay the same to the landlord within one month from the date of service upon him of a notice of demand. The plaintiff, therefore, before he can get an eviction of a tenant has to establish that the arrears of rent was not less than four months which has not been paid inspite of notice of demand. In the instant case when the notice of demand was issued on 17th February, 1976 only three months' rent was due for the months of November, 1975, December, 1975 and January, 1976. In the circumstances, the notice of demand which was issued on 17th February, 1976 could not be held to be a valid notice of demand as the tenant was not in arrears of rent for more than four months. Since this notice of demand was wholly invalid and could not be considered to be a notice of demand under Section 20 (2) (a) of the Act, non compliance of the said notice cannot render the tenant for ejectment and as such the petitioner could not have been held to be a defaulter in the eye of law. The view to the contrary taken by the courts below is therefore, manifestly erroneous. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is well founded.
(3.) IN the result, the petition is allowed. The judgments of the Judge Small Causes Court, Ranikhet dated 25th April, 1979 and the revisional court dated 19th October, 1978 are quashed to the extent that the decree for ejectment is wholly invalid. The rest of the decree shall, however, stand. IN the circumstances of the case parties are directed to bear their own costs. Petition allowed.;