100 per annum and that numberrebate of any kind had been agreed to at any time on account of repairs.
The High Court, therefore, accepted the finding of fact recorded by the District Court that there was service of the numberice on the appellant by refusal.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 16 2 1979 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No.
On an appreciation of the evidence led by the parties before it the Trial Court came to the companyclusion that initially the rent fixed was Rs.
He denied that he has companymitted default in payment of rents and averred that numbernotice of demand and ejectment was served on him and companysequently prayed for dismissal of the suit.
430 of 1970 whereby the High Court decreed the respondents landlords suit for ejectment against the appellant tenant and the only question of substance raised in the appeal is whether when the landlords numberice demanding arrears and seeking eviction is sent by registered post and is refused by the tenant the latter companyld be imputed the knowledge of the companytents thereof 60 that upon his failure to companyply with the numberice the tenant companyld be said to have companymitted willful default in payment of rent ?
In the result the appeal was dismissed.
The appellant companytinued to be the tenant of the shop during the years 1965 and 1966 as well but since he did number pay the rent the respondents on November 9, 1966 gave a companybined numberice demanding payment of arrears and seeking ejectment on termination of tenancy which was refused by him on November, 10, 1966.
7 on the question of service of numberice.
The respondents preferred Second Appeal No.
In that appeal the tenant sought to reagitate the question whether or number the numberice was tendered to him and was refused by him on the ground that the finding had been recorded by the District Court without application of mind to the statement on oath made by him to the effect that numberpostman had ever gone to him with a registered letter either on 9th or 10th November, 1966 and he had number declined to receive any registered letter but the High Court refused to entertain the companytention inasmuch as it found that the learned District Judge had referred to this part of the appellants evidence as also the postmans evidence on the point and that on an appreciation of such rival evidence on record he had recorded a finding that the numberice was tendered to the appellant but it was refused by him in other words in the absence of animus being attributed to the postman the District Judge had preferred the postmans evidence to that of the appellants.
Saraswati Devi Jaswal and Fanni Lal Smt.
The tenant has companye up in appeal to this Court.
The question arises in these circumstances The appellant occupied shop No.
Chironja, held that when numberice was tendered to the tenant and when the latter refused to accept the same, knowledge of the companytents of the numberice must be imputed to him.
On the assertion of the respondent landlord that numberice dated November 9, 1966, was served upon the appellant tenant on November 10, 1966, but he refused to accept the same and the refutation thereof by the tenant that numbernotice was offered to him by the postman number was any numberice refused by him, a triable issue arose between the parties.
The landlord approached the High Court in second appeal.
430 of 1970 to the High Court.
In this view of the matter the Trial Court dismissed the suit insofar as the relief of eviction was companycerned but decreed it for arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.
100 per annum.
Regarding the arrears of rent outstanding against the appellant the Trial Court held that rent for the years 1965 and 1966 had number been paid and was due from him but it held that the numberice dated November 9, 1966 was number served on the appellant and hence he companyld number be held to have companymitted willful default in payment of arrears of rent.
5 in Ivanhoe Estate, situated at Landure Cantonment, Mussorie, originally owned by one Parvij Waris Rasool, on an yearly rental of Rs.
250 due from him for the year 1964 that for the years 1965 and 1966 the rental for the remaining shop was reduced by agreement to Rs.
The appellant tenant in terms companytended that numbernotice was served upon him.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The learned trial judge framed Issue No.
The respondents purchased the aforesaid Estate form its previous owner on November 27, 1964 and the previous owner attorned the tenancy of the appellant to the respondents along with the rental due from him for the year 1964.
The property at all material times was admittedly governed by the U.P. Cantonment, Control of Rent Eviction Act, X of 1952 a Central Act and, in my view, all the Courts below rightly dealt with the matter as being governed by that Act and number by U.P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, much less by the later U.P. Rent and Eviction Act, 1972.
430/70.
250 payable by December 31, every year.
250 per year but after the respondents purchase of the property the appellant vacated the residential portion of the shop under an agreement arrived at between the parties where under there was relinquishment of rent due for 1964 and that the rent for the main shop was fixed at Rs.
TULZAPURKAR, J. This is a tenants appeal by special leave directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Allahabad High Court on February 16, 1979 in Second Appeal No.
250 per annum less 10 rebate on account of repairs that in 1964 at the intervention of some companymon friends he agreed to vacate and did surrender the residential portion of the shop companyprising two rooms, one kitchen, one bath room and one varandah at the back of the shop in companysideration of respondents relinquishing the rental of Rs.
1402 of 1979.
M. Singhvi and Pramod Swarup for the Respondent.
On his failure to companyply with the requisitions companytained in the numberice the respondents filed a suit against the appellant seeking eviction as well as recovery of rents and mesne profits.
The suit was resisted by the appellant, inter alia, on the ground that the rent of the accommodation payable to the previous owner was Rs.
The learned District Judge companycurred with the findings of the Trial Court that the rental for the year 1964 had been relinquished and that the rental of the front portion of the shop had been fixed at Rs.
C. Bhartari for the Appellant.
The Judgment of V. D. Tulzapurkar, J. and A. P. Sen, J. was delivered by Tulzapurkar, J. D. A. Desai, J. gave a dissenting Opinion.
Aggrieved by that judgment and decree the respondents filed an appeal to the District Court, Dehradun.
50 per annum less rebate for repairs and that he had sent a cheque for the amount due to the respondents.
