- (1.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows:- The defendants are tenants of the dis puted property on a monthly rent of Rupees 18/-. The property originally belonged to one Kanhaiyalal who died in the year 1933. Raj Kumar Agrawal is said to be the son of Kanhaiyalal. Smt. Nanhi Bibi is the widow of Kanhaiyalal. According to the plaintiff, Raj Kumar Agrawal was born seven months after the death of Kanhaiyalal and was the natural son of Kanhaiyalal. The property in dispute was sold by Smt. Nanhi Bibi to Smt. Tara Rani, plaintiff-respondent on 7-3-1967. It was then realised that the property belonged to Raj Kumar Agrawal who was the natural son of Kanhaiyalal. Raj Kumar Agrawal then executed another sale-deed on 24-4-1967 in favour of Smt. Tara Rani. Smt. Tara Rani then served- a notice on the de fendants alleging that they were in arrears of rent and that their tenancy was terminated in accordance to Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. After this notice, the suit for ejectment and arrears of rent was filed.
(2.) THE suit was contested by the de fendant-appellants on various grounds. The first ground was that no title and interest passed to the plaintiff in the disputed pro perty by the sale-deeds. The second con tention was that the notice under Sec. 106 of the T. P. Act was invalid. The third contention was that a building stood on the land in dispute in 1950 which was an accom modation as provided under the U. P. Tem porary Control of Rent and Eviction Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and, therefore, no suit for ejectment of the de fendant-appellants could be filed without complying with the provisions of section 3 of the Act. In this very connection, it was also contended that admittedly there was a building on this land which was constructed hi 1959 and when the Act came into force, it was an accommodation goverened by the Act. The other contention was that Smt. Nanhi Bibi had remarried another person after the death of Kanhaiyalal and that Raj Kumar Agrawal was the son born of the second husband of Smt. Nanhi Bibi and was not entitled to the property in dispute. All these contentions did not find favour with the trial Court and the lower appellate Court. The plaintiff's suit was, therefore, decreed. Being dissatisfied, the defendants have filed this appeal. The first contention of the leaned counsel for the appellant was that it was a transferable and actionable claim and as pro vided under Section 131 of the Transfer of Property Act, there being no notice of trans fer of actionable claim in writing, the suit was not maintainable. Section 131 of the Transfer of Property Act reads as below:- 'Every notice of transfer of an action able claim shall be in writing, signed by the transferor or his agent duly authorised in this behalf, or in case the transferor refuses to sign, by the transferee or agent and shall ttate the name and address of the transferee."
(3.) "Actionable claim" has been de fined under Section 3 of the Transfer of Pro perty Act which reads as below:- "Actionable claim" means a claim to any debt, other than a debt secured by mortgage of immovable property Or by hypothecation or pledge of moveable property, or to any beneficial interest in moveable property not in the possession, either actual or construc tive, of the claimant, which the Civil Courts recognise as affording grounds for relief, whe ther such debt or beneficial interest be exis tent, accruing, conditional or contingent." ;