- (1.) THIS is a defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment of the appellant from an accommodation as well as for recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation for the period subsequent to the determination of the tenancy. Both the courts below having decreed the suit, the defendant tenant has filed this second appeal.
(2.) SHORTLY stated the plaint case was that the plaintiffs were trustees of the Maharaja Kashiraja Dharmakarya Nidhi and the premises in suit of which the defendant is the tenant were owned by them. The defendant was a tenant on behalf of the plaintiff on a monthly rental of Rs. 110/- under a registered lease dt/-6-11-1960. The defendant fell in arrears of rent for more than 19 months. He also made material alterations in the building under tenancy without the consent of the plaintiffs where upon a registered notice was served on the defendant on behalf of the plaintiffs terminating the tenancy asking him to clear the arrears of rent demanded thereby as well as to remove the unauthorised constructions and to vacate the premises. Despite the fact that the notice was served on the defendant on 26-02-1964 he neither vacated the premises nor paid the arrears and hence the suit. The appellant resisted the suit on a variety of grounds including that no notice was served on the defendant nor had he made any material alterations nor illegally occupied any room as alleged in the plaint. The validity of the notice was also challenged on the ground that Raghubansh Sahai who had given the notice on behalf of the trustees had no power to give that notice. Relevant issues were framed by the trial court which answered all the material issues against the appellant. It held that the aforesaid notice had been duly served on the defendant. In spite of that the defendant committed default. It further held that the defendant had made material alterations in the building and illegally occupied the room which did not form part of his tenancy. The trial court also upheld the validity of the notice. On these and other findings the suit was decreed. The findings of the trial court were affirmed in appeal.
(3.) SRI. R. N. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant mainly concentrated his submissions on the validity of the notice given by Raghubans Sahai under S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The argument was that in view of the provisions of S. 47 of the Trust Act, the decision to terminate the tenancy could not be delegated by the trustees to Raghubansh Sahai. It is another matter that the ministerial act of issuing the notice under S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act could be delegated to Raghubansh Sahai. That being so, Raghubansh Sahai acting by himself could not validly determine the tenancy of the appellant. I find no substance in the above argument. The notice states that it is being given on behalf of the trustees of the aforesaid Trust through their Mukhtarnama (Power of attorney) Sri Raghubansh Sahai. S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act does not require that the notice must be given by the lessors themselves. Such a notice can be given by any one authorised in that behalf by the lessors. Under the Mukhtar-nama Raghubansh Sahai was specifically authorised inter alia to give notice on behalf of the trustees. The power of Raghubansh Sahai, therefore, to give notice on behalf of the trustees, hence could not be challenged.;