9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (3) TMI 245X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er as a tenant "on the same terms" by which he, presumably, meant that it was a month to month tenancy. 2. The Andhra Pradesh Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' came into operation before the lease expired. 3. The appellant seemed to be constantly making defaults in payments of rent. The landlord respondent had, therefore, to file a suit for arrears of rent in the Court of District Munsif, Vishakhapatnam, which was decreed on 4th April, 1962. The landlord respondent had to file a petition on 21st April, 1962, under Section 10 of the Act before the Rent Controller, Vishakhapatnam for the eviction of the appellant as no rent was paid from 1st December, 1961 to 31st M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with which we are now concerned, provided a procedure for eviction of tenants which was self contained so that no recourse to the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was necessary. 5. We may also refer here to the observations of this Court in Dinesh Sharma V. Vardaan Agrotech P. Ltd. [2007] 135 Comp Cas 133,. (2) There, this Court noticed Shri Hem Chand v. Shrimati Ahem Devi. (3) and pointed out "that it was held there that the Act under consideration in that case provided the whole procedure for obtaining the relief of ejectment, and, that being so, provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act had no relevance". No doubt the decision mentioned with approval by this Court related to another en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such a case from Manailal's case (supra) where an entirely different kind of provision of another Act in another State was being considered by this Court. The Division Bench decision of the High Court, applied by the learned Judge, had we think enunciated the correct principle. 8. A question raised before us by learned Counsel for the respondent is whether the notice sent by the respondent-landlord could be held not to have been served at all simply because the postman, who had made the endorsement of refusal, had not been produced. The Andhra Pradesh High Court had relied upon Maghiji Kanji Patel v. Kundanmal Chamanlal, (5) to hold that the notice was not served. There, a writ of summons, sought to be served by registered post, had be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt that the plaintiff could not succeed without further evidence. The Andhra Pradesh High Court had applied the ratio decidendi of the Bombay case because the defendant-appellant before us had deposed that he had not received the notice. It may be that, on a closer examination of evidence on record, the Court could have reached the conclusion that the defendant had full knowledge of the notice and had actually refused it knowingly. It is not always necessary, in such cases, to produce the postman who tried to effect service. The denial of service by party may be found to be incorrect from its own admissions or conduct. We do not think it necessary to go into this question any further as we agree with the High Court on the first point argued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
