Case Note & Summary
The case involves a landlord-tenant dispute over Block No.3 situated in a chawl at Railtoli, Gondia. The plaintiff-landlord, Surendrakumar Agrawal, filed a suit for recovery of possession and damages against his tenant, Vithalrao Agre (since deceased, represented by legal heirs). The landlord claimed that after obtaining necessary permission from the Rent Controller, he issued several notices under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, terminating the tenancy and calling upon the tenant to vacate by 15.9.1987. He alleged that five earlier notices were returned unserved, but the sixth notice dated 28.8.1987 was received by the tenant, and he also sent a telegram. The tenant denied receiving any notice or telegram and disputed the grant of Rent Controller's permission. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that no valid notice was served. The first appellate court reversed this decision, finding that the notice dated 20.7 (sic August) 1987 was duly served, and directed the tenant to hand over possession within one month and ordered a separate enquiry for mesne profits under Order XX Rule 12 CPC. The tenant's legal heirs appealed to the High Court. The High Court, after considering the evidence, upheld the appellate court's finding on service of notice, noting that the notice was sent by registered post and telegram, and the tenant's bare denial was insufficient. The appeal was dismissed, and the decree of the first appellate court was confirmed.
Headnote
A) Rent Control and Tenancy Law - Termination of Tenancy - Service of Notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - The landlord sought possession of suit premises after obtaining Rent Controller's permission and issuing multiple quit notices. The tenant denied receipt of any notice. The trial court dismissed the suit holding no valid notice, but the first appellate court reversed, finding that the notice dated 28.8.1987 was duly served. The High Court upheld the appellate court's finding, noting that the notice was sent by registered post and telegram, and the tenant's bare denial was insufficient to rebut the presumption of service. (Paras 2-6) B) Civil Procedure - Mesne Profits - Order XX Rule 12 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The first appellate court directed a separate enquiry for mesne profits after delivery of possession. The High Court affirmed this direction, holding that mesne profits can be determined in a separate proceeding. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff-landlord validly terminated the tenancy of the defendant-tenant by serving a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and whether the first appellate court correctly reversed the trial court's finding on this issue.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, confirming the judgment and decree of the first appellate court dated 5.4.1995, which directed the defendant to hand over vacant possession of the suit premises within one month and ordered a separate enquiry for mesne profits under Order XX Rule 12 CPC.
Law Points
- Service of notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act
- 1882
- can be proved by registered post acknowledgment
- denial of receipt by tenant must be weighed against evidence of dispatch and postal endorsement
- Rent Controller's permission is a prerequisite for issuing quit notice under Rent Control Act.
