K.N. Srivastava, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal arising out of the following facts: Kewal Ram was the landlord of the disputed portion of the house which was let out to Visheshwar Rao on a monthly rent of Rs. 14/ -. Kewal Ram served a notice on the tenant Under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act on 20 -7 -1961. He then applied for a permission from the DM as provided Under Section 3 of the U.P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act. This permission was granted to the landlord by the RC and EO whom the powers had been delegated by the DM. The permission is dated 22 -2 -1965. The house originally belonged to an evacuee. It was purchased by the landlord and a sale certificate was issued in his favour with effect from 1 -1 -1958. The certificate is dated 25 -4 -1961. The Defendant was the tenant of this premises from before this auction sale. After permission Under Section 3 of the U.P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act was obtained, a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent was filed by Kewal Ram against the Defendant on 27 -2 -1965.
(2.) THE suit was contested by the Defendant on various grounds and inter alia it was pleaded that as provided Under Section 29 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act of 1954, the Defendant was not liable to ejectment for a period of two years. The there ground was that the notice Under Section 05 of the Transfer of Property Act was waived by the landlord per his letter (sic) A -4 which is dated 29th October, 1964. The third ground was that the notice was bad in law and that under the Transfer of Property Act, which was Central Act, only 15 days notice was required and therefore, the period of 10 days notice as amended by the provincial law was not applicable. Other rounds were also taken but we are not concerned with them in this appeal as they were not pressed here. The learned trial court came to the conclusion that the notice Under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was waived by the landlord and therefore, the Defendant was not liable to ejectment . As a result of this finding, the suit was decreed for arrears of rent alone. Being dissatisfied, the Plaintiff filed an appeal.
(3.) THE lower appellate court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit for arrears of rent and ejectment as well is against this decree that the Defendant has filed this appeal.;