Mahesh Chandra Raikwar And 2 Ors. vs Dr. Ravi Kankane on 12 August, 2013
In the case of Mahesh Chandra v. Piyush Kumar Agarwal and another, reported in 2012 (91) ALR 819 relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Martin & Hariss Ltd. v. Vith additional District Judge, and others (supra), this Court held that when the tenant had not taken the plea about notice in the written statement, it can be said that he had waived it. It also needs to be pointed out that in case such a plea was taken by the tenant at that time, the landlord could have withdrawn the application filed by him and given six months' notice to the tenant and thereafter filed the application under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. Admittedly, in the present case, no plea has been taken in the written statement. Thus, on the facts and circumstances, the appellate authority has rightly arrived to the conclusion that such plea has been waived. Moreover, it is not the case of no notice. The notice has been given on 14.11.1991. It appears to have been a composite notice under Sections 20 and 21 (1) (a) of the Act. The reply given by the petitioners to the notice reveals that it was a notice under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. In the reply, it was stated that the landlord did not bonafidely need the premises in dispute. Thus, the notice given on 14.11.1991 fulfils the requirement of the proviso to Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. No further notice was required to be given. Three years' period is a sort of moratorium intended for the tenant's protection. After expiry of three years' period the protection given to the tenant from being evicted has no further relevance. Thereafter it is only the question of notice.