Case Note & Summary
The present second appeal was preferred by the defendant-tenant against the judgment and order dated 31.7.1998 passed by the learned Joint District Judge, Amravati, in Regular Civil Appeal No.1 of 1993, which arose from the decree dated 31.10.1992 passed by the learned 5th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Amravati, in Regular Civil Suit No.308 of 1991. The plaintiff-landlord had filed a suit for recovery of possession of House No.199, Ward No.9, re-numbered as House No.600, Ward No.24 at Sham Nagar, Amravati. According to the plaintiff-landlord, the defendant-tenant was a monthly tenant paying rent at the rate of Rs.250/- per month inclusive of Municipal Taxes. She fell in arrears. Therefore, on the ground that she was a habitual defaulter and the house needed essential repairs which could not be carried out unless vacant possession was given by the tenant, the plaintiff-landlord applied to the Rent Controller to grant permission to issue eviction notice. Thus, notice dated 8.2.1991 was issued by the plaintiff-landlord to the defendant-tenant terminating its tenancy on the aforesaid ground. The plaintiff-landlord also claimed damages at the rate of Rs.10/- per day apart from the arrears of rent and applied for relief of possession as well. The defendant-tenant disputed the arrears of rent in the sum of Rs.6,750/- in written statement and questioned the legality of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The learned trial Judge, upon evidence led before it, found that the defendant-tenant was in arrears of rent from February, 1989 to March, 1991 in the sum of Rs.6,250/-. He also held that the termination notice to quit the premises was valid and legal and the tenancy was validly terminated. The plaintiff-landlord was also held entitled to claim damages as prayed for. The first appellate court confirmed the findings. In the second appeal, the appellant-tenant did not appear to prosecute the appeal. The court observed that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below were based on evidence and could not be interfered with in second appeal unless perverse. The court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Arrears of Rent - Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 106 - Landlord sought possession on grounds of arrears and essential repairs - Trial court and first appellate court found notice valid and tenant in arrears - Held that concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with in second appeal unless perverse (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was valid and legal, and whether the tenant was a habitual defaulter justifying eviction.
Final Decision
The second appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act
- 1882
- validity of termination of tenancy
- arrears of rent
- damages for use and occupation
- habitual defaulter
- essential repairs requiring vacant possession
