- (1.) THIS Judgment shall govern second appeals Nos. 478 of 1968, 286 of 1969 and 349 of 1969 which were connected and heard together. Each of these cases arises out of the suit for ejectment and arrears of rent filed by the landlord. In each case a decree for ejectment and arrears of rent was passed in favour of the landlord against the tenant. An appeal filed by the tenant against that decree passed by the trial Court in each case was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. Hence the tenants have now approached this Court by filing the second appeals.
(2.) I heard the learned counsel for the parties. The common question of law that was raised on behalf of the ap pellants in all the three appeals was that the notice of termination of tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Pro perty Act was pre-mature in view of the provisions contained in the U. P. (Tem porary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. At this place it may be pointed out that the landlord in the suit out of which second appeal No. 478 of 1968 has arisen had sought the ejectment of the tenant on the basis of permission prayed for from the District Magistrate and which was ultimately granted by the Commissioner in revision filed before him though the District Magistrate had ori ginally refused to grant the permission. In the other two suits out of which second appeals Nos. 286 and 349 of 1969 have arisen the landlord had sought ejectment of the defendant on the ground that he made default in payment of ar rears of rent due for more than three months in spite of a notice being served on him under Section 3 (1) (a) of the said Act In these two cases the notice of termination of tenancy under Section 106, Transfer of Property Act was combined with the notice under Section 3 (1) (a) of the Rent Control Act while in the third case the landlord had served the notice under Section 106 prior to obtaining the permission from the Commissioner for filing the suit for ejectment against the tenant. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the cause of action to terminate the tenancy arises only after the bar placed by the Rent Control Act is removed on account of the failure of the tenants to pay the arrears of rent within the pres cribed period after service of notice on him under Section 3 (1) (a) or after ob taining permission from the District Magistrate for filing a suit for ejectment A notice under Section 106 purporting to terminate the tenancy even prior to that; It is contended on behalf of the appellants, is pre-mature and as such, invalid. In my opinion, this argument is without any substance. The bar that has been placed by the Rent Control Act is hi the way of filing a suit and not in the way of ter minating tenancy. A tenancy by notice under S. 106 can be terminated either by the landlord or by the tenant For ter minating such tenancy the Rent Control and Eviction Act does not place any bar. What has been barred by S. 3 of that Act is that no suit for ejectment shall be filed unless one or more of the conditions pres cribed therein have been fulfilled. That being so. a landlord is at liberty to give a notice to his tenant under Section 106, Transfer of Property Act requiring him to vacate the premises within one month from the date of receipt of that notice. If the tenant wants to vacate the house within this period he is at liberty to do so. He need not himself give a notice to the landlord about his intention to vacate (the house in such circumstances and he can simply comply with the notice of the landlord. If. however, the tenant does not want to vacate the house, the land lord will not be competent to file a suit for ejectment against him unless he is able to fulfil one or the other of the re quirements laid down in Section 3. If none of those requirements is fulfilled the notice of termination of tenancy would remain in fructuous and on its basis the landlord would not be able to eject the (tenant so long as the Temporary Rent Control Act remained in force.
(3.) IN view of the position stated above there can be no legal objection to a landlord giving a composite notice to his tenant under Section 106, Transfer of Property Act and Section 3 (1) (a) of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act If the tenant pays the 'arrears of rent demanded from him under Section 3 (1) (a) he shall not be liable to ejectment and the notice under Sec. 106 will again remain in fructuous. If. how ever, the arrears of rent are not paid within the prescribed period the tenancy would stand terminated on the expiry of She period prescribed by Section 106 and thereafter the landlord would be compe tent to file a suit for ejectment against (She tenant if the latter does not volun tarily vacate the premises. This view is supported by a string of decisions of this Court as well as of Supreme Court. A reference may be made to Mangilal v. Sugam Chand Rathi, AIR 1965 SC 101; Jagan Nath Prasad v. Smt. Chandrawati, 1969 All LJ 881 = (AIR 1970 All 309 (FB)); Mohd. Ismail v- Nanney Lal, AIR 1970 SC 1919; Shamsher Ali v. Smt. Mohini Jagtiani. 1972 All Lj 331: Ganga Ram v. Smt Phulawati. 1970 All LJ 336 = (AIR 1970 All 446 (FB) and Fannilal v. Smt. Chironja, 1972 All LJ 499.;