- (1.) This is a Defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment. The defence was, that notices Under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 3 of the Rent Control and Eviction Act were not served on the Defendants and that they were invalid and that the Plaintiff was not entitled to sue. The trial court after going through the evidence found the issues against the Defendants and decreed the suit for arrears of rent and for ejectment. On appeal by the Defendant the decision of the trial court was affirmed by the lower appellate court.
(2.) The points raised in this appeal are (1) that the notice Under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was not served on two out of three Defendants and (ii) that no notice of demand within the meaning of Section 3 of the Rent Control and Eviction Act was served on Lila Dhar and Radhey Shyam and they, therefore, could not be said to have committed any default or be liable to ejectment.
(3.) It appears that notices were separately sent Under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy and demanding the arrears of rent that had fallen due. Both these notices were served on one of the three Defendants, Ram Chandra, It is admitted that only one copy of each notice way issued by the Plaintiff. These notices were addressed to all three persons and were sent by registered post. Learned Counsel for the Appellants argues that no notice having been served on Lila Dhar and Radhey Shyam their tenancy could not be held to have been terminated within the meaning of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. No notice of demand having been served on these two persons, as required by Section 3 of the Rent Control and Eviction Act, learned Counsel contends that these two persons could not be said to be in default.;