S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) This is landlord's writ petition arising out of suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent instituted by him against tenant-respondent No. 2, Murari Lal Agarwal in the form of SCC Suit No. 404 of 1987 on the file of JSCC, Allahabad. In the plaint it was stated that rent, at the rate of Rs. 60/- per month was due against tenant-respondent No. 2 since 1.6.1984 till 30.4.1987, which had not been paid in spite of service of notice of demand and termination of tenancy. The tenant pleaded that the land over which tenanted accommodation was constructed was public land and plaintiff had unauthroizedly made constructions thereupon and in respect there of a notice for eviction under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act had been served upon the defendant also. It was further stated that in pursuance of the said notice proceedings for eviction had been initiated against the landlord before the Prescribed Authority under the aforesaid Act. According to the further case of the tenant defendant, the said notice and proceedings under Public Premises Act created a bona fide doubt in his mind regarding landlord-ship of the accommodation in dispute hence he deposited the rent under Section 30 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 since June, 1984 till October, 1987 in Case No. 453 of 1984 in the Court of Munsif West, Allahabad. The said case was dismissed in default, hence another case was instituted by the tenant for deposit of rent being Case No. 467 of 1987, in which final order was passed in favour of the tenant on 8.8.1988. It was further pleaded that Officer in charge of the concerned Government Department/Undertaking sent a notice to the defendant on 1.11.1985 directing him not to pay the rent to the plaintiff, as plaintiff was not owner of the accommodation in dispute and he had made constructions over Government land.
(3.) JSCC, Allahabad through judgment and decree dated 24.7.1980 decreed the suit for eviction. Decree for recovery of arrears of rent was also passed and it was further directed that landlord was entitled to withdraw the amount deposited by the tenant under Section 30(2) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The trial Court held that in the notice given by the Officer in Charge rent was not demanded. The only thing which was stated in the said notice was that tenant should not pay the rent to the petitioner as petitioner had constructed the accommodation in dispute over the public land after encroaching thereupon. Against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court tenant filed SCC Revision No. 199 of 1990. District Judge, Allahabad through judgment and order dated 29.5.1991 allowed the revision in part. Suit in respect of ejectment was dismissed. However, landlord was held entitled to the rent deposited under Section 30(2) of the Act. The Revisional Court agreed with the trial Court that tenant was not authorized to deposit the rent under Section 30(2) of the Act. However, the Revisional Court held that service of notice of termination of tenancy and demand of rent was not valid as it had been published in the newspaper. The tenant had replied the notice through his Advocate. It has been held by the Supreme Court in S.D. Nigam v. M.L. Gupta, 2004 (2) ARC 118, that for filing a suit for eviction of the tenant from a building covered by U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, it is not necessary to terminate the tenancy through notice under Section 106, Transfer of Property Act. It is correct that notice under Section 106, Transfer of Property Act is required to be in writing and signed by or on behalf of landlord. However, notice of demand of rent under Section 20(2)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 need not be in writing and signed by or on behalf of the landlord. The said clause only states that 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 notice of demand". In view of this even if it is held that notice through publication in newspaper (which was also replied by the notices tenant) was not a valid notice under Section 106, Transfer of Property Act, still there is no doubt that such notice is quite valid under Section 20(2)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.;