N.N.Mithal, J. - (1.) The defendants-appellants in this second appeal have lost in both the two courts below in a suit for ejectment which was filed against them by the plaintiffs on the ground of default in the payment of rent.
(2.) Briefly stated the facts are that Bandhu Lal was the original owner of the disputed property. He transferred this property to the plaintiff by sale deed dated 12-3-1963. The plaintiff allegedly served a notice of demand coupled with a notice terminating the tenancy under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act on 13-3-1989 which is said to have been received by the defendant No. 1 on 17/18th March 1969. It is further alleged that since ti)e defendant did not make the payment . as demanded in the notice she had committed default and was, therefore, liable for ejectment. The defendant No. 2 is the daughter of defendant No. 1 and since she had started living in the house during the period when defendant No. 1 was undergoing jail sentence she has also been impleaded as a party to avoid any future complications.-
(3.) The suit was contested by both the defendants who submitted their separate written statements papers Nos. 42 Ka and 10 Ka. It was pleaded in defence by the defendant No. 2 that the suit had been filed in collusion with the previous owner and that the defendant No. 2 was also a tenant from the time of the previous landlord and that one year prior to the filing of the written statement defendant No. 1 had ceased to be a tenant in the house. In this manner she had no concern left with the payment of rent etc. It is further stated that both the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 had been initiated in the house as co-tenants and after defendant No. 1 had been sentenced to jail defendant No. 2 alone was the tenant in the house in question continuing from the time of Bandhu Lal. It is further clarified that the defendant No. 2 was living in the house with her mother from the .very beginning as her dependant but as a co-tenant and right from the beginning she had been living as a member of the family in the said house. After defendant No. 1 had gone to the jail she became sole-tenant and she had been in occupation of the house by payment of rent and Bandhu Lal also had been treating and accepting her as tenant of the house. The suit was, therefore, barred due to estoppel and acquiescence. It is further alleged that defendant was not liable to ejectment and she had not committed default. It was said that the plaintiff had not given any notice under Section 106 or 111 of the Transfer of Property Act to defendant No. 1 nor any such notice had been served on defendant No. 2. It is further said that no reply of notice was sent by defendant No. 2 to the plaintiff as was wrongly mentioned in the plaint. She has merely pleaded that rent was sent by her on coming to know of the transfer of the plaintiff and that no default had been committed and the suit was not maintainable. The defendant No. 1 in her written statement 42-Ka also pleaded in defence on the same lines but she has also contended that after being released from the jail she had again become a tenant and she is entitled to the benefit of Sec. 39 of the U. P. Act 13 of 1972 as she had already deposited the entire amount due from her.;