Sudhir Narain - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15-12-1988 passed by respondent No. 2 decreeing the suit for arrears of rent, ejectment and damages against the petitioner and the judgment dated 25-7-1991 passed by respondent No 1 affirming the said order in revision.
(2.) THE petitioner is a tenant of the disputed, accommodation. Respondent No. 3 filed 6u.it No. 101 of 1987 lot arrears of rent, ejectment and damages against him on the allegations that a notice dated 24-8 1987 was sent to him demanding arrears of rant which was due since 5-3-1983 and terminating his tenancy but the defendant did not comply with the said notice and gave a wrong reply on 15th September, 1987. THE disputed accommodation was not covered by the provisions of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. THE defendant was liable for ejectment as he committed default in payment of arrears of rent. THE petitioner contested the suit on the allegations that the suit was filed by Mahant Sita Ram Das and he had no right to file the suit He had not committed default in payment of arrears of rent. THE- rent was not due since 5-3-1983 and the notice sent on behalf of the plaintiff was invalid Tins Judge, Small Causes Court decreed the suit on the finding that the defendant committed default in payment of arrears of rent and accordingly decreed the suit, THE order has been affirmed in revision by respondent No. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the notice sent on behalf of plaintiff-respondent No. 3 was invalid. A true copy of the notice alleged to have been sent on behalf of respondent No. 3 has been annexed as Annexure ''1'' to the writ petition. Respondeat No. 3 has denied the correctness of the contents of the said notice and a photosat copy of the said notice has been annexed as Annexure ''1'' to the counter affidavit. It is accepted by learned counsel for the parties that the photostat copy is a correct copy of the notice which was received by the petitioner. The notice is in Hindi. The substance of the notice is that the rent for fifty four months was due against the petitioner but in spite of repealed demand the same is not being paid to the Landlord The petitioner should pay rent within one month from the date of receipt of the notice, obtain receipt and thereafter occupying the disputed premises for thirty days, vacate the same. The landlord does not want to retain his as a tenant. He is harassing the landlord in payment of rent and the construction is a new one. The tenancy is terminated after thirty days from the date of receipt of the notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the notice of demand and termination of tenancy must be distinct and clear though a composite notice may be served by a landlord to the tenant. The notice sent to the petitioner indicates that there was no clear demand. The notice indicates that the rent was demanded but at the same time he was asked to vacate the accommodation and such notice is invalid. He placed reliance upon a decision in Harish Chandra v. Second Additional District Judge, Moradabad 1983 (1) ARC 89 wherein the Court heId that unless a demand is made that the defendant must pay entire arrears of rent within thirty days failing which be would render himself liable to 'ejectment, the notice will be invalid In that case, it was found that the landlord in the notice had not demanded the arears of rent, He had simply indicated in the notice that he does not desire that the defendant should continue Is as tenant and he is in arrears of rent since 21st April, 1978, The 'word' demand' was missing in the said notice. In the instant case, respondent No. 3 sent a notice indicating that fiftyfour months' rent was due and in spite of various demands he failed to pay rent It was clearly indicated that the petitioner should pay arrears of rent within one month from the date of receipt of the notice and obtain receipt. There is a clear demand in the said notice. , The notice further terminates the tenancy after expiry of thirty days from the date of receipt of the notice. The relationship of landlord and tenant is based on the contract of a tenancy. Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act permits a landlord to teminate the tenancy and after such termination the existing relationship of landlord and tenant ceases. Section 20 (2) (as of U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act') puts a bar for filing a suit for eviction against the tenant from a building unless the grounds mentioned therein exist. Section 20 (2) (a) of the Act reads as under: "that the tenant is in arrears of rent for not less than four months, and has failed to pay the same to the landlord within one month from the date of service upon him of a notice of demand........."
(3.) THIS provision contemplates that a demand notice be served upon the tenant by a landlord to the tenant regarding arrears of rent which on the date of the notice is not less than four months. The provision does not contemplate that he should further indicate the consequences In case the amount is not paid within one month. In Dr. Bhupeshwar Sahi v. State of U. P., 1988 (1) ARC 134, it was held that under section 20 (2) fa) of the Act only demand has to be made and a composite notice of demand and termination of tenancy can be given and such notice is a valid one. In Ram Autar v. IVth Additional District Judge, Buiandshrar, 1992 (2) ARC 442, it was held that the scheme of the Act does not contemplate that In the notice the grounds on which the suit is to be filed should be indicated The notice envisaged therein is only a simple notice determining the tenancy and in case the suit is based on the ground contemplated under section 20 (2) in) of the Act, a further notice is required demanding payment of arrears of rent. As in the instant case respondent No. 3 had demanded arrears of rent, the requirement as contemplated under section 20 (2) (a) of the Act was fully satisfied. The notice has further terminated the tenancy and it satisfies the requirement as contemplated under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.;