RSA No.384 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.384 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 8.2.2010 Jatinder Pahwa ......Appellant(s) Versus Darshan Korpal and another ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Suresh Goel, Advocate for the appellant. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. CM No.1087-C of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. RSA No.384 of 2010 (O&M) This is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff-respondents for possession by way of ejectment of the appellant from the premises in question and also for recovery of arrears was decreed. Brief facts of the suit as enumerated in the plaint are that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 through plaintiff-respondent No.2 who was her General Power of Attorney rented out the house in question to the appellant vide rent agreement dated 19.8.2003. The appellant failed to pay the rent after June, 2004. The tenancy of the appellant was terminated by issuing him a legal notice dated 11.10.2005 which was sent through registered A.D by postal receipt dated 13.10.2005 at his correct address. Since the appellant failed to hand over the vacant possession of the rented premises to the plaintiff-respondent, the present suit was filed. RSA No.384 of 2010(O&M) 2 Upon notice, the defendant-appellant filed written statement raising various preliminary objections. On merits, it was admitted that premises in question were taken on rent by the appellant from plaintiff- respondent No.2. However, it was denied that he was liable to be ejected. Dismissal of the suit was prayed for. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the evidence on record, the trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff- respondents. Challenging the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the appellant filed an appeal which was also dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 14.12.2009. Still not satisfied the appellant has filed the instant appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that as per the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1998, the notice before the expiry of contractual period, cannot be deemed to be valid, however, the Courts below have failed to consider this aspect. Elaborating further learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that as per the rent note, one month’s prior notice was required. However, in the present case notice of 15 days was given and thus, the suit which was filed before the expiry of one month’s period was not maintainable and therefore, the judgment and decrees of the Courts below are liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported as Manujendra Dutt v. Purnedu Prosad Roy Chowdhury and others 1967 AIR (SC) 1419, Bhaiya Punjalal Bhagwanddin v. Dave Bhagwatprasad Prabhuprasad and others 1963 AIR (SC) 120 and Satish Chand Makhan and others v. Govardhan Das Byas and others RSA No.384 of 2010(O&M) 3 AIR 1984 SC 143. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment and decrees. Admittedly, as per the rent deed dated 19.8.2003, the tenancy which was for 11 months ended on 18.6.2004. It is undisputed that on the expiry of tenancy, no fresh rent deed was executed between the parties and the tenancy of the appellant was terminated by serving a legal notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act by giving 15 days’ notice. It is well settled proposition of law that where the Rent Act is not applicable for seeking the ejectment of the tenant, even the serving of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was not required at all. This Court is supported in its aforesaid view by ratio of law laid down by this Court in Kirshan Chand v. Vidya Sagar 1999(1) Rent Control Reporter 255. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M/s Raptakos Brett & Co. v. Ganesh Property 1998(2) Rent Control Reporter 353 has even gone to the extent of laying down that after the expiry of the lease period, if a tenant is not vacating the leased premised and there is no express provision in the lease deed requiring the lessee to vacate the premises, even then, the landlord has a statutory right to get the possession of the property and tenant has a statutory obligation to vacate the same. Condition of one month's notice in the rent note was applicable only if the lessee wanted to vacate the premises or lessor wanted to terminate the tenancy during the tenancy period and not on the expiry of aforesaid tenancy. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellant are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Thus, I find no merit in this appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises in this appeal which requires interference by this Court while RSA No.384 of 2010(O&M) 4 exercising its power under Section 100 of the Code. Dismissed. February 8, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE