Arun Tandon, J. - (1.) The plaintiff appellant filed Original Suit No. 318 of 1962 for ejectment and recovery of damages for use and occupation of the property more appropriately described in the plaint.
(2.) On behalf of the plaintiff it was contended that the defendant was his tenant and that his tenancy was terminated after notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. According to the plaintiff open piece of land was let out to the defendant and, therefore, provisions of U.P. Rent Control and Eviction Act, 1947 could not be attracted. The suit was decreed by the trial Court and it was held that the termination of tenancy was valid. The defendant was directed to remove the construction/structure raised on the land and to handover possession of the land to the plaintiff.
(3.) Not being satisfied the defendant filed Civil Appeal No. 351 of 1967. The appeal has been allowed by the first appellate Court only on the ground that notice as served upon the tenant under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was invalid. It has been held that the notice discloses addresse of one Mohalla only whereas the leased property was situate in two Mohallas i.e. Diwan Bazar and Nazirabad. It was, therefore, held that notice was bad for terminating only part of the tenancy. Hence the present second appeal.;