- (1.) Challenging the eviction decree, submission of Sri Vishnu Gupta learned counsel for the petitioner is that the notice dated 2.9.1999 whereby the tenancy was allegedly determined, is not a valid notice. It was sent by the power of attorney who had no right to determine the tenancy. Admittedly, the suit property is a trust property. The registered trust deed was brought on record.
(2.) On issue no. 1, a categorical finding is recorded by the Court below that the trust was registered and the trust deed provides for filing of suit by the power of attorney holder. The General power of attorney, the basis of filing the suit is also a registered document. Furthermore, the registered power of attorney is dated 20.5.1998 and the notice to quit was sent on 2.9.1999. As such the contentions raised herein regarding validity of the notice, are misconceived.
(3.) Second ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the contents of notice Paper No. 7Ga was not proved by the plaintiff in his oral evidence. The plaintiff had appeared in the witness box and deposed that the notice Paper No. 7Ga was sent by him but he did not narrate the contents of notice nor did state that the tenancy was determined by him by the said notice. The Court below, therefore, has erred in concluding that it was a case of termination of tenancy under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act.;