Shanti Devi Nigam v. Madan Lal Gupta .

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Though notice was served on the respondent, he has not entered appearance. The appellant herein filed a suit under Section 20(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 for eviction of the respondent from the premises. The trial court ordered eviction. The ground for eviction was arrears of rent. Prior to the filing of the suit under Section 20(2), the appellant had issued a notice to the respondent under Section 20(2)(a) of the Act. The trial court found that the respondent had failed to pay arrears of rent and eviction was granted on the ground of default in paying arrears of rent.

3. The respondent filed revision before the District Judge and the same was dismissed. Thereafter, the respondent preferred a writ petition challenging the eviction passed against him. Aggrieved by the same, the writ petition was filed before the High Court (sic). By the impugned judgment, the High Court was of the view that the notice issued by the landlady was not in accordance with law and the High Court was of the view that the landlady should have issued proper notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and as the notice of demand for eviction was not ending with the month of the tenancy, the same was held to be not in accordance with the mandate of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and the eviction ordered by the trial court was set aside and the matter was remitted for the purpose of redetermination of the arrears of rent.

4. The counsel for the appellant submits that under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 notice under Section 106 was not required for seeking eviction under Section 20 of the Act. It is also pointed out that under Section 20(2)(a) specific notice is provided for seeking eviction on the ground of arrears of rent and the notice issued by the appellant landlady seeking eviction under Section 20(2)(a) of the Act fulfilled the conditions required under law. Our attention was also drawn to the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in V. Dhanapal Chettiar v. Yesodai Ammal . (1979) 4 SCC 214 wherein the very same question was considered in detail and it was held that notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was not required to be sent for seeking eviction under the provision of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The provisions in the Uttar Pradesh Act are in pari materia with the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 and the decision applies in all force. Therefore, the decision rendered by the High Court is not sustainable in law. We set aside the judgment of the High Court. The eviction order passed by the trial court is affirmed and as the matter is now pending before the trial court, the trial court may pass appropriate orders in accordance with the observations made above.

5. The appeal is disposed of.