Uttarakhand High Court
Lal Singh Bisht ... vs Dhan Singh Sajwan on 9 March, 2021
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No.366 of 2021 (M/S)
Lal Singh Bisht ....Petitioner/Defendant
Vs.
Dhan Singh Sajwan ....Respondent/Plaintiff
Advocate : Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for the petitioner.
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
This is a tenant's writ petition, which is arising out of the
judgment of 25.09.2018 which was rendered by Judge Small Causes/Civil
Judge (Sr. Division), Tehri Garhwal in S.C.C. Suit No.01 of 2017, Sri
Dhan Singh Sajwan vs. Shri Lal Singh, whereby the respondent/landlord
by issuance of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act,
had simplicitor terminated the tenancy of the petitioner from the tenement
in dispute, which was the subject matter of suit. The fact pertaining to the
issuance of notice and its service upon the petitioner on 20.04.2017,
determining the tenancy and demanding the petitioner to vacate the
tenement and hand over the vacant possession of the disputed shop in
question, is a fact which was apparently as per evidence and concurrently
in view of the findings records, are affirmed by both the courts below.
Consequently, on issuance of notice, on initiation of the aforesaid
proceedings of SCC Suit, the petitioner had put in appearance and filed his
objection by way of a written statement Paper No.22(C) and the fact of
being a tenant of the disputed shop and existence of the relationship of
landlord and tenant was not disputed. Consequently, the controversy in the
suit had boiled down on one major issue, which was framed by the learned
trial court which is referred to hereunder:-
"(1) Whether the plaintiff has lawfully determined the
tenancy of the defendant over suit property? If so its effect."
2. The aspect pertaining to the determination of the tenancy of the
defendant, over the suit property i.e. the tenement shop had been decided
in favour of the land lord, holding thereof that by virtue of the provisions
of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, will not attract the
forfeiture of Clause (g) of Section 111 of Transfer of Property Act and
hence the stand taken under Section 114 of the said Act is not available to
the petitioner. Consequently, the learned trial court by the judgment dated
25.09.2018, had held that the termination of the tenancy by virtue of
issuance of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, was a
valid termination and it would seize the existence of the relationship of
landlord and tenant and had decreed the suit thereby directing the
petitioner to vacate the premises within one month. However, the said
judgment of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Tehri Garhwal was put to challenge by
the petitioner in a SCC Revision, before the Court of District Judge, which
was later on, transferred to the court of Additional District Judge and was
numbered as SCC Revision No.1 of 2018, Lal Singh vs. Dhan Singh
Sajwan.
3. The revisional court too vide its judgment dated 27.11.2020,
while elaborately dealing with the issue in para 4 of the judgment had
logically assigned reasons in para 14 of the judgment thereby holding
thereof that in view of the provisions contained under Section 111(h), to be
read with the notices contemplated under Section 111(g) of the Transfer of
Property Act, the objection raised pertaining to the cessation of tenancy by
way of forfeiture by invoking Section 111(g), was absolutely and rightly
determined by the learned trial court and the revisional court too dismissed
the revision considering the impact of Section 111(h); where the landlord
has also expressed that apart from termination of tenancy he wanted the
tenement in question to meet his need for the purposes of expansion of the
business of his son.
4. It is not only that the revisional court has recorded a finding to
the effect; that the terms of the termination of tenancy by the notice of
26.04.2017 was legally valid termination, which as per the finding
recorded by both the courts below stood served on the tenant/petitioner, the
contents of the said notice was not denied or controverted by filing its
reply and hence, both the courts have rightly held that the petitioner's
tenancy was rightly terminated by issuance of a notice under Section 106
of the Transfer of Property Act, dated 26.04.2017 and since it has now
attained a concurrent finding of facts, which has been recorded by both the
courts below against the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the writ
petition. Consequently, the writ petition lacks merit and the same is
accordingly, dismissed.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
09.03.2021
Arti/
