Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.22 seconds)Section 106 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 25 in The Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 [Entire Act]
The Indian Soldiers (Litigation) Act, 1925
Section 25 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Surya Dev Rai vs Ram Chander Rai & Ors on 7 August, 2003
8. A bare reading of Sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 20 of the Act clearly demonstrates that if the relationship has to be regulated by the Statute, namely, Act No. 13 of 1972, it can come to an end only in accordance with the provision prescribed under the Statute, namely, Section 20 of the Act. A bare reading of Section 20 of the Act aforesaid demonstrates that it does not talk of a notice of termination of tenancy specifying the ground or grounds to be served by the landlord on the tenant. In the absence of any such statutory provision and in the light of the proposition that the tenancy is regulated by the Act No. 13 of 1972, this contention of Shri Jain also deserves to be rejected and is hereby rejected. Shri Jain thereafter submitted that the findings arrived at by the trial Court and affirmed by the revisional Court on the other issues suffer from error of law. He further contended that the findings arrived at by the trial Court and affirmed by the Revisional Court demonstrates that these findings deserve to be quashed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I am afraid that this contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted, particularly in view of the laid down by the Apex Court reported in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Ors., (2003) 6 SCC 675, particularly, Paragraph 38 (8), which is reproduced below, this is not a fit case to be interfered with by this Court, as this Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings arrived at by the trial Court and affirmed by the revisional Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:-
Section 3 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
V. Dhanapal Chettiar vs Yesodai Ammal on 23 August, 1979
In view of the decision of the Constitutional Bench, referred to above, the contention of Shri Jain that a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is must before filing of the suit, deserves to be rejected and is hereby rejected. Shri Jain then submitted that in the cases, which are covered with the provision of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, like the present case where a notice terminating the tenancy is sine qua non. A notice as contemplated under Sub-section (1) to Section 20, referred to above the Act, because a suit can be instituted as contemplated under Section 20 (1) of the Act only on the grounds enumerated under Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act. According to Shri Jain, the tenant is protected from the eviction on the mere desire of the landlord by the Statute and is restricted only on the grounds available under Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act. Shri Jain submitted that in view of the aforesaid protection, it is necessary that the notice contemplated under Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Act must contain the ground or grounds on which the suit is proposed to be filed, whereas in the present case the notice terminating the tenancy is a simple termination notice without specifying the ground, particularly any of the specific ground under Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act. Section 20 (2) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is reproduced below:-