9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1981 (2) TMI 199 - SC - Indian LawsThe appellant continued to be the tenant of the shop during the years 1965 and 1966 as well but since he did not pay the rent the respondents on November 9 1966 gave a combined notice demanding payment of arrears and seeking ejectment on termination of tenancy which was refused by him on November 10 1966. On his failure to comply with the requisitions contained in the notice the respondents filed a suit against the appellant seeking eviction as well as recovery of rents and mesne profits.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the tenant could be imputed with knowledge of the contents of the notice when it was sent by registered post and refused by the tenant. 2. Whether the tenant committed willful default in payment of rent. 3. Whether the suit was maintainable without the permission of the District Magistrate under Section 14(1) of the U.P. Cantonment (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1952. 4. Interpretation of Section 20(2)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972. 5. Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Knowledge of Contents of Notice: The primary question was whether the tenant could be imputed with knowledge of the contents of the notice when it was sent by registered post and refused by the tenant. The Supreme Court held that under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, a presumption of due service arises if the notice is sent by properly addressing, prepaying, and posting it by registered post. This presumption includes the knowledge of the contents of the notice. The Court stated, "It is impossible to countenance the suggestion that before knowledge of the contents of the notice could be imputed, the sealed envelope must be opened and read by the addressee." Hence, the tenant must be imputed with the knowledge of the contents of the notice. 2. Willful Default in Payment of Rent: The Court held that since the tenant refused to accept the registered notice, he must be imputed with the knowledge of its contents, including the demand for arrears of rent. The tenant's failure to pay the rent within one month of the service of notice constituted willful default under Section 14(a) of the U.P. Cantonment (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1952. The High Court's decision to grant the landlords' prayer for ejectment was upheld. 3. Maintainability of the Suit Without Permission: The appellant contended that the suit was not maintainable under Section 14(1) of the Act as no permission of the District Magistrate was obtained. The Supreme Court referred to the interpretation of an identical provision in Section 3(1) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, by this Court in Bhagwan Dass v. Paras Nath. It was held that permission of the District Magistrate was required only if the landlord sought eviction on grounds other than those specified in Clauses (a) to (f). Since the ground for eviction was willful default in payment of rent, no permission was required, and the suit was maintainable. 4. Interpretation of Section 20(2)(a) of the Rent Act: A separate judgment by Desai, J., focused on the interpretation of Section 20(2)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972. Desai, J., emphasized that the tenant must be in arrears of rent for not less than four months, and the rent must be payable by month. Since the rent in this case was payable yearly, Section 20(2)(a) was not applicable. Desai, J., concluded that the tenant could not be evicted under this provision. 5. High Court's Interference with Concurrent Findings: Desai, J., also addressed the issue of the High Court's interference with the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts. It was noted that the High Court should not interfere with such findings unless there is a substantial question of law. The High Court had erred in interfering with the finding that the statutory notice was not served upon the tenant. Conclusion: The majority judgment dismissed the tenant's appeal, upholding the High Court's decision to grant the landlords' prayer for ejectment. However, Desai, J., dissented, allowing the appeal and dismissing the landlords' suit for eviction on the grounds that the rent was not payable by month and the statutory notice was not served as required by law.
|
