- (1.) R. P. Misra, J. Heard Sri R. P. Goyal, learned Senior Counsel for the revisionist assisted by Sri Manish Goyal and Prakash Gupta, learned Counsel for the plaintiff respondent.
(2.) THE first notice dated 18-8-1992 was given by the landlady, plaintiff respondent, for terminating the tenancy of Defendant No. 1 Kewal Krishna Anand. THE second notice dated 2-5-1993 was given by Sri M. C. Gupta, Advocate on behalf of the landlady demanding arrears of rent and terminating tenancy of Dfendant No. 1, Kewal Krishna Anand. THE learned II Additional District Judge, Agra framed the following issues: " (1) Whether there existed a relationship of landlady and tenant between the plaintiff and Defendant No. 1? (2) Whether there existed a relationship of landlady and tenant between the plaintiff and Defendant No. 2? (3) Whether the Defendant No. 2 is the sub-tenant as alleged by the plaintiff? (4) Whether the Defendant No. 2 is liable to be evicted? (5) To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?" Issue Nos. 1 and 2 were decided in favour of the revisionist and it was held that there existed relationship of landlady and tenant the plaintiff and Defendant No. 2. Mahendra Kumar. Issue No. 3 was also decided in favour of the revisionist and it was held that the Defendant No. 2, revisionist cannot be held to be sub-tenant of Defendant No. 1, Kewal Krishna Anand in the shop in dispute. However, Issue No. 4 was decided against the revisionist and it was held that the revisionist is liable to be evicted in consequence of the notice terminating his tenancy, which has been served upon him by the plaintiff. Issue No. 5 was also decided against the revisionist and it was held that revisionist, Mahendra Kumar is liable to pay rent/mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 2,000 per month from July, 1993. The II Additional District Judge vide impugned order dated 20-3-1998 decreed the suit of the plaintiff with costs and directed that revisionist shall hand over the vacant possession of the property in dispute to the plaintiff within 60 days from the date of the judgment.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the revisionist has submitted that there was no authorization to Sri M. C. Gupta Advocate by the landlady to terminate the tenancy of the revisionist Mahendra Kumar. In support of his submission, learned Counsel for the revisionist relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ishwar Bhai C. Patel @ Bachu Behera and another v. Harihar Behera and another reported in 1999 (35) A. L. R. 755. In rebuttal, learned Counsel for the respondent has relied upon the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Abdul Jalil v. Haji Abdul Jalil, reported in AIR 1974 Allahabad page 402. In the aforesaid judgment of this Court, following types of notices have been considered and it has been clearly held as to which type of notice is according to law or not: " (A) You are hereby informed or you are given this notice that your tenancy shall stand determined on the expiry of thirty days from the date of service of this notice. (B) You are informed that your tenancy will determine on the expiry of thirty days from the date of service of this notice and you are called upon to vacate the premises on the expiry of the said period of notice failing which a suit for ejectment shall be filed against you. (C) I do not want to keep you as my tenant. You are therefore given this notice and required to vacate the premises on the expiry of thirty days from the date of service of this notice on you. (D) Your tenancy is terminated with effect from today and you are required to vacate the premises on the expiry of thirty days from the date of service of this notice on you. (E) Your tenancy is terminated and you are required to vacate, the premises on the expiry of thirty days from the date of service of this notice failing which a suit for ejectment shall be filed against you. (F) You are given this notice to quit or vacate the premises on the expiry of thirty days from the date of service of this notice failing which a suit for ejectment shall be filed against you. (G) You are required to vacate the premises on the expiry of thirty days from the date of receipt of this notice. " The learned Counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the aforesaid judgment and submitted that the illustration Nos. E and F will apply to the present case. The learned Counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the illustration No. G is applicable to the present case. In paragraph 20 of the aforesaid judgment it has been held as follows: " (G) A notice of this type simply contains a demand for possession. It does not evidently purport to terminate the tenancy either expressly or impliedly. In the absence of anything further so as to give a clear and explicit intimation to the tenant that if he remains in occupation of the premises after the date mentioned therein, he will become a trespasser, it may not be treated even as a valid notice to quit in view of the observations made by the Full Bench in by the Full Bench in (1885) ILR 7 All 899 (FB ). ";