1972 (3) TMI 106 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Title and interest transfer to the plaintiff through sale-deeds.
2. Validity of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.
3. Applicability of the U.P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act.
4. Validity of the sale-deed executed by Raj Kumar Agrawal.
5. Res judicata applicability regarding Raj Kumar Agrawal's paternity.
6. Nature of the property and whether it constitutes 'accommodation' under the Act.
7. Manufacturing purposes and monthly rent settlement.
8. Validity of the notice terminating tenancy.
9. Adjournment of the appeal pending new legislation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Title and Interest Transfer to the Plaintiff through Sale-Deeds:
The defendants contended that no title and interest passed to the plaintiff through the sale-deeds. The court clarified that the sale of the house and the right to realize rent from the tenants were not actionable claims requiring notice under Section 131 of the Transfer of Property Act. The sale was of the entire property, and the plaintiff claimed rent accrued post-sale. Therefore, no notice under Section 131 was necessary.

2. Validity of Notice Under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act:
The defendants argued that the notice under Section 106 was invalid. The court found that the notice was a simple demand for arrears of rent and termination of tenancy, with no indication that the provisions of Section 131 were considered. Therefore, the notice was valid.

3. Applicability of the U.P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act:
The defendants argued that the property was an accommodation under the Act, and thus, the suit for ejectment was not maintainable without complying with the Act's provisions. The court found that the property, consisting of three boundary walls and no roofed structure, did not constitute 'accommodation' under the Act. The Act applies to buildings with a roof, and the property in question was vacant land used for tethering cattle.

4. Validity of the Sale-Deed Executed by Raj Kumar Agrawal:
The defendants claimed that the sale-deed by Raj Kumar Agrawal was without consideration. The court held that Raj Kumar Agrawal executed the sale-deed to avoid litigation for his mother, Smt. Nanhi Bibi, and acknowledged receiving the sale consideration earlier. Therefore, the sale-deed was valid.

5. Res Judicata Applicability Regarding Raj Kumar Agrawal's Paternity:
The defendants argued that the finding in an earlier suit regarding Raj Kumar Agrawal's paternity should not operate as res judicata. The court maintained the finding based on the oral evidence of Smt. Nanhi Bibi, who testified that Raj Kumar Agrawal was the son of Kanhaiyalal, born seven months after his death. This finding was based on accepted evidence and could not be disturbed.

6. Nature of the Property and Whether it Constitutes 'Accommodation' Under the Act:
The court examined whether the property leased to the defendants in 1957 constituted 'accommodation' under the Act. It found that the property was vacant land with boundary walls, used for tethering cattle, and did not qualify as 'accommodation' under the Act, which requires a roofed structure.

7. Manufacturing Purposes and Monthly Rent Settlement:
The defendants contended that the property was rented for manufacturing purposes and that no monthly rent was settled. The court found no evidence supporting this claim. Drying husk on the land did not constitute a manufacturing process, and the property was not rented for such purposes.

8. Validity of the Notice Terminating Tenancy:
The defendants argued that the notice terminated the tenancy in the present, making it invalid. The court found that the notice allowed the defendants to stay until the period prescribed under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, and thus, it did not terminate the tenancy in the present.

9. Adjournment of the Appeal Pending New Legislation:
The defendants requested an adjournment pending the new U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Bill, 1970. The court decided against the adjournment, stating that cases must be decided based on existing law, not on anticipated future legislation.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed with costs, as none of the defendants' arguments had merit. The plaintiff's suit for ejectment and arrears of rent was upheld.