1979 (8) TMI 211 - SC - Indian Laws

Eviction without Section 106 notice upheld under State Rent Acts

V. DHANAPAL CHETTIAR Versus YESODAI AMMAL

The Supreme Court held that a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is not necessary for eviction under State Rent Control Acts unless ... - Issues Involved:1. Necessity of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act for eviction under State Rent Control Acts.2. Validity of the notice given by the landlady.3. Bona fide requirement of the premises by the landlady.Detailed Analysis:1. Necessity of Notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act:The central issue in this case was whether a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is necessary for eviction under State Rent Control Acts. The Supreme Court addressed a divergence of opinions among various High Courts and previous decisions of the Supreme Court on this matter. The Court noted that State Rent Control Acts were enacted post-World War II to protect tenants from undue eviction and exorbitant rent demands. These Acts vary in language and scheme across states but generally provide specific grounds for eviction, making the necessity of a notice under Section 106 debatable.The Court observed that under the Transfer of Property Act, leases are contractual, and a lease can be terminated by giving a notice under Section 106. However, State Rent Control Acts override this by providing specific grounds and procedures for eviction, thus making the determination of a lease by notice under Section 106 redundant. The Court cited various High Court decisions and previous Supreme Court rulings, noting that the requirement of notice under Section 106 should not be uniformly applied across different State Rent Acts.The Court concluded that when a tenant incurs liability for eviction under a State Rent Act, the landlord's action of filing an eviction suit is tantamount to expressing an intention to terminate the lease. Therefore, a notice under Section 106 is not obligatory unless explicitly required by the State Rent Act.2. Validity of the Notice Given by the Landlady:The Court did not find it necessary to decide on the validity of the notice given by the landlady under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The primary controversy was whether such a notice was required at all, given the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Rent Act. The Court emphasized that the Tamil Nadu Rent Act, like other State Rent Acts, provides specific grounds and procedures for eviction, making the notice under Section 106 unnecessary.3. Bona Fide Requirement of the Premises by the Landlady:The Rent Controller initially dismissed the landlady's petition for eviction on the grounds of personal necessity, deeming it not genuine. However, the Appellate Court found the landlady's requirement for the premises bona fide but maintained the dismissal due to an invalid notice. The High Court, following its previous decision, ruled that a notice under Section 106 was not necessary for eviction under the Tamil Nadu Rent Act.The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, agreeing that no notice under Section 106 was required. The Court also noted that no substantial point was presented to challenge the Appellate Court's finding of bona fide necessity by the landlady. The appeal was dismissed, and the Court directed the parties to bear their own costs.Conclusion:The Supreme Court resolved the issue of the necessity of a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act for eviction under State Rent Control Acts, concluding that such a notice is not required unless explicitly mandated by the State Rent Act. The Court upheld the High Court's decision that the landlady's bona fide requirement for the premises justified the eviction, dismissing the tenant's appeal.