JUDGMENT U.K. Dhaon, J.
1. Heard Sri H.S. Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri U. K. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties.
2. The 'brief facts of the case are that a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment was filed by the opposite parties who is the landlord of the premises in dispute. In the plaint, it was inter alia stated that the revisionist was admitted as tenant in the house No. 20/174, Indira Nagar, Lucknow on 22.11.1987 on a monthly rent of Rs. 700 + Rs. 400 as water and sewer charges total Rs. 1,100 per month. It was also stated in the plaint that the rent was stopped by the tenant since Febraury, 1991 and inspite of the registered notice dated 8th February, 1993 under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, neither the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 27,500 were paid nor the premises was vacated. The suit was contested by the revisionist who was defendant in the suit on the ground that the rent is not Rs. 1,100 per month but it is only Rs. 700 per month and Rs. 400 are paid towards water and sewer charges. It was also stated in the written statement that the plaintiff has also neglected the maintenance of the premises and did not spend a single paise on the maintenance of the house and the defendant has spent about Rs. 22,000 on repairs etc. The suit is time barred and deserves to be dismissed.
2A. Both the parties in support of their contention filed oral and documentary evidence before the trial court. The trial court by the judgment and decree dated 8.2.1996 decreed the suit with costs and directed the defendant/revisionist to vacate the premises in two month and hand over the possession of the plaintiff/ opposite party.
3. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 8.2.1996 the revisionist has filed the instant revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act. Sri Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the notice issued by the opposite party under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was invalid and the finding of the courts below is contrary to the pleadings. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that there was no agreement about tenancy and water charges were deposited by the revisionist who has also spent huge amount towards the repair of building. Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon a decision of this Court in Abdul Jalll v. Hajt Abdul Jalil, AIR 1974 All 402, and on the the strength of the aforesaid judgment it has been argued that as the notice is invalid, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and judgment and decree passed by the court below deserves to be set aside.
4. Sri U. K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that there is no illegality in the notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act and by the said notice the tenancy was determined and the revisionist was directed to vacate the premises within 30 days from the receipt of the notice and default was not a ground for eviction. He further submits that by the said notice the Intention of the landlord was clear. He has relied upon a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagwandas Agarwalla v. Bhagwandas Kanu and others, AIR 1977SC 1120 and the decision of this Court in Kailash Pati Engineering Co. v. IIIrd Additional District Judge. Gonda and others, 1983 ARC 148. He further submits that insplte of the notice neither the possession was handed over nor the arrears of rent were paid by the tenant and the trial court after considering the entire evidence on record has rightly decreed the suit of the landlord for arrears of rent and ejectment.
5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The revisionist was admitted as tenant on 22nd November, 1987, on a monthly rent Rs. 700 + Rs. 400 as water and sewer charges. The notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act was issued on 8.2.1993 by the landlord which was duly served upon the revisionist. The revisionist neither vacated the premises nor paid arrears of rent to the opposite party and therefore, the suit for arrears of rent and ejectment was filed. The trial court after considering the entire evidence on record has decreed the suit. The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that by the impugned notice his tenancy was determined with immediate effect, the notice is defective, cannot be accepted. It is settled law that a notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act is not to be strictly construed. The notice should contain clear intention of the landlord to terminate the tenancy and it should give the period of one month to vacate the tenanted accommodation. In the instant case although the tenancy was determined with immediate effect but 30 days time from the receipt of the enotice was granted to the tenant to vacate the premises for which period he was treated as tenant and rent was also claimed for the said period. Every tenant is under an obligation to pay the rent to the landlord regularly. There is no dispute that the total rent was Rs. 1,100 (700 towards the rent and Rs. 400 towards the water and sewer charges). The revisionist also could not prove that he has invested Rs. 22,000 in repair of the house. There is no illegality in the Judgment and decree passed by the trial court.
6. The revision petition is devoid of merits. It is accordingly dismissed with costs. The stay granted by this Court is hereby vacated.