V.K. Khanna, J. - (1.) The following question of law has been referred for the opinion of the Full Bench:-" Whether, for the purposes of Section 116 of Transfer of Property Act, it was necessary that there should be a contract subsequent to the termination of the original lease regarding the period of notice required under Section 106, T. P. Act."
(2.) According to the learned single Judge there was a clear conflict of opinion expressed in two Division Bench decisions of this Court reported in Radha Ballabh v. Bahore Ram Chand, (AIR 1955 All 679) and Zahoor Ahmad Abdul Sattar v. State of U.P., (AIR 1065 All 326). The learned single Judge in the referring order has held that the earlier Division Bench (Radha Ballabh supra), has held that "the contract to the contrary" mentioned in Section 116 of Transfer of property Act may be the one contained in the original lease and it was not necessary that such a contract must necessarily be arrived at after the old lease comes to an end while the latter Division Bench in the case of Zahoor Ah-mad Abdul Sattar (supra) has held that such a contract to the contrary must necessarily be arrived at or after the holding over by the contractual tenant commences. The period of notice also was held to be dependent on the "purpose" of the lease.
(3.) As far as our High Court is concerned, the following cases have dealt with the question referred to this Full Bench:- (1) Badal v. Ram Bharose, (AIR 1938 All 649); (2) Suiti Devi v. Banarsidas Bhagwan-das, (AIR 1949 All 703); (3) Radha Ballabh v. Bahore Ram Chand, (AIR 1955 All 679); (4) Zahoor Ahmad Abdul Sattar v. State of U.P., (AIR 1965 All 326); and (5) Shiv Nath v. Shri Ram Bharosey Lal, (AIR 1969 All 333) (FB).;