Janardan Sahai, J. - (1.) A suit for rent and ejectment was filed by the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 against the applicants in the Judge Small Cause Court, Muzaffarnagar. The defendant-applicant Union of India is running a Post Office in the building in dispute. The applicant claims that the premises in dispute were let out in the year 1984 for a period of five years by a lease deed at a rental of Rs. 7,500/- per month* A fresh agreement was it is alleged entered on 28.11.1994 and the lease was renewed for a further period a five years and rent was enhanced to Rs. 11,200/- per month. It appears that no fresh lease was executed thereafter but the defendant-applicants continued to remain in the premises and rent was being paid by them. The plaintiff's case is that the tenancy of the applicants was terminated by notice dated 30.11.2000 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act served on 2.12.2000. As the defendant-applicants did not vacate the premises, a suit for eviction and recovery of rent for the period 2.1.2001 to 21.4.2001 was filed. The defence of the applicant-defendant was that Act 13 of 1972 was applicable to the building in dispute and the notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act was invalid. It was held by the trial Court that Act 13 of 1972 is not applicable as the rent of the building being more than Rs. 2,000/- per month, the building was exempt under the provisions of Section 2 (g) of that Act. The Court below has considered the various authorities upon the point and its finding is in accordance with law. It was also found that the notice related to the property in dispute, which was in the tenancy of the petitioner and was not invalid. The Judge Small Cause Court decreed the suit for eviction and recovery of rent and also awarded damages at the rate of Rs. 5/- per sq. ft.
(2.) I have heard Shri B.N. Singh learned Counsel for the applicants and Shri P.K. Jain learned Counsel for the respondents.
(3.) It is submitted by Shri B.N. Singh, learned Counsel for the applicants that notice under Section 106 of Transfer of property Act, hereinafter called as the 'Act' was invalid because only one month notice was given whereas six months notice was required to be given in the instant case because the building was let out for a commercial purpose. The building has not been let out either for manufacturing purpose or for agricultural purpose as such the submission that six months notice was required to be given has no force.;