Hari Swarup, J. - (1.) THIS is a plaintiff's appeal of arising out of a suit for ejectment of the tenant from three shops and for arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation. The trial court decreed the plain tiff's suit for ejectment as well as for arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation. On appeal filed by the defendant, the lower ap pellate court set aside the decree so far as it related to ejectment and modified the decree for money by reducing the amount on the finding that the rent of one of the shops was not Rs. 8.00 but Rs. 7.00. The tenant has filed no appeal. The landlord has come up in appeal against the appellate court's decree.
(2.) THE appellate court has held that the tenant was in default in pay ment of arrears of rent within the meaning of section 3 of the U. P. (Tem porary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act and accordingly the suit was maintainable. It has, however, dismissed the suit for ejectment on the ground that the notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act directing the tenant to quit was invalid. The defendant was tenant of three shops of the plaintiff. The tenancies were separately created. Through the notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act the Landlord sought to terminate the tenancy of all these three shops. Accor ding to the court below, the three tenancies could not be terminated by a single notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. It has been urged by the appellants learned counsel that there is no basis in law for the view taken by the court below according to him the three tenancies could be terminated by a single notice to quit. The ques tion will ultimately depend upon the wordings of the notice itself. There seems to be no reason why instead of writing separate notices on three papers the Landlord cannot in the same document include notices termi nating more than one tenancy and direct the tenant to vacate. Of course, if the Landlords are different or the tenants are different, such a thing cannot possibly be done. In the present case, the Landlord and tenant are the same. Notice Ext. 1 has stated clearly that the defendant was tenant of three shops and the three tenancies were separate though the Landlord has mentioned in the notice that the rent of two shops, viz., shops nos. 1116 and 1119 was Rs.16.00. The notice clearly states that the tenant should vacate each of the three shops on the expiry of the thirty days of the receipt of the notice. It has also mentioned that the tenancy was being terminated. As the notice very clearly states that the tenant should vacate each of the three shops, it cannot be held that the notice did not clearly mean the termination of each of the three tenancies and did not require the tenant to vacate each of the three shops. There appears to be no legal bar to the termination of three tenancies by the landlord through one notice.
(3.) NO appeal has been filed by the tenant challenging the decree for money. It is thus established that more than four months rent was due on the date of the notice in respect of each of the three shops. The amount of Rs. 120.00 tendered by the tenant within one month of the notice was not sufficient to clear the arrears of rent in respect of any of the three shops. Even the tender of Rs. 120.00 made by the tenant was in respect of any specific tenancy. In the written statement the tenant himself had stated that it was sent towards the rent due in respect of the three tenancies. But even if it is treated to be in respect of any of the three shops as the rent due on the date of the notice, the amount in respect of any of the three shops was for the period of more than three years and the crediting of this amount towards the rent due in respect of any of the three tenancies could not be sufficient to bar the maintain ability of the suit in respect of any of the three shops.;