SHISHIR KUMAR,J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner. When in spite of the notice, the respondents did not put in appearance, then the petitioner was permitted to serve respondents personally and to file an affidavit of service. An affidavit of service has been filed. Respondent no.4 has accepted notice himself as well as on behalf of respondent no.1 but respondents no. 2 and 3 have refused to take the notice. The affidavit of service has been filed on 29.9.2008. The respondents are the joint tenants living in the same accommodation, therefore, legally it will be presumed that notice upon all the respondents are sufficient.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders dated 14.1.1998 and 2.12.2000, Annexures-4 and 5 to the writ petition by which the suit filed by the petitioner being landlord for arrears of rent and ejectment has been dismissed and the revision has also been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a finding has been recorded that there is a default on the part of the respondents but only on the technical ground that a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is defective as only 30 days' time has been given in the notice though, being a commercial accommodation, it should have been 6 months, only on this technical ground, the Judge Small Causes Court has dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner.
(3.) THE petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court reported in ARC 1982 page 403 in the case of Smt. Ram Murti Devi Vs. Addl. District Judge, Meerut and others and para 13 of the judgment has been referred to. Taking support of the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it may be for manufacturing purposes, if the parties are agreed, that the tenancy would be from month to month irrespective of purpose of tenancy, then in that situation, one month notice is sufficient. Another judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is 2008 (2) ARC 370 rendered in the case of Triloki Nath Tandon Vs. A.K. Bhattacharya and reliance has been placed upon para 31 of the said judgement which is quoted below: "31. It is, therefore, clear from the aforesaid decision that where the lease has been granted for manufacturing purposes but the tenancy is from month to month then the lease can be terminated under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act by giving one month notice. The aforesaid decision has placed reliance upon an earlier decision of this Court which was affirmed by the Supreme Court. The finding to the contrary recorded by the Small Cause Courts is, therefore, liable to beset aside and is, accordingly, set aside and it is held that the tenancy was validly terminated." ;