Transfer of property and tenancy notice principles clarified, with rent-control coverage and evidentiary findings upheld.

A sale of immovable property was treated as a transfer of ownership, not a transfer of an actionable claim, so no separate notice requirement for actionable claims applied to the rent claim arising after sale. The sale-deed was held supported by consideration and effective to pass title. Findings on paternity and the absence of remarriage were based on evidence and were not open to interference in second appeal. The tenancy notice was valid because, read as a whole, it complied with the statutory period despite present-tense wording. The disputed land was not shown to be accommodation under the rent-control law or to have been let for manufacturing purposes, and a proposed new statute did not justify adjournment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the transfer of the house and the claim for rent required compliance with the notice requirement for transfer of an actionable claim under the Transfer of Property Act; (ii) whether the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff was without consideration and ineffective to pass title or interest; (iii) whether the finding that Raj Kumar Agrawal was the son of Kanhaiyalal and that Nanhi Bibi had not remarried could be disturbed in second appeal; (iv) whether the notice terminating tenancy was invalid because it purported to terminate the tenancy in presenti; (v) whether the disputed land was an accommodation governed by the U.P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act or was let for manufacturing purposes; (vi) whether the appeal should be adjourned in view of the proposed U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) legislation.

Issue (i): Whether the transfer of the house and the claim for rent required compliance with the notice requirement for transfer of an actionable claim under the Transfer of Property Act

Analysis: The right asserted by the plaintiff arose from the sale of the property, and rent was claimed only for a period after the sale. The transfer was of ownership in the property, not merely of a bare right to recover rent as an actionable claim. The provisions governing transfer of actionable claims were therefore inapplicable to the transaction.

Conclusion: The contention failed and no notice under the provision dealing with transfer of actionable claims was required.

Issue (ii): Whether the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff was without consideration and ineffective to pass title or interest

Analysis: Raj Kumar Agrawal executed the sale-deed to avoid litigation concerning title and because the earlier transfer from Nanhi Bibi had created difficulty. The deed recorded receipt of the price, and there was no evidence that the recital of consideration was false. A sale under the Transfer of Property Act depends on transfer of ownership for a price, and the court found the transaction supported by consideration and effective to pass title.

Conclusion: The sale-deed was supported by consideration and validly passed title and interest.

Issue (iii): Whether the finding that Raj Kumar Agrawal was the son of Kanhaiyalal and that Nanhi Bibi had not remarried could be disturbed in second appeal

Analysis: Even apart from any earlier litigation, there was direct oral evidence accepted by the courts below that Raj Kumar Agrawal was born after Kanhaiyalal's death and was his natural son. The alleged remarriage of Nanhi Bibi was found unreliable on evidence. These were findings based on appreciation of evidence and were not shown to be perverse.

Conclusion: The findings of paternity and widowhood stood and were not open to interference.

Issue (iv): Whether the notice terminating tenancy was invalid because it purported to terminate the tenancy in presenti

Analysis: The notice, read as a whole, demanded arrears and terminated tenancy in accordance with the statutory period; it did not terminate the tenancy with immediate effect. Use of present tense in the recital was not decisive where the overall intention was to end the tenancy after the prescribed notice period. The notice was therefore consistent with the statutory requirement for termination of a monthly tenancy.

Conclusion: The notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was valid.

Issue (v): Whether the disputed land was an accommodation governed by the U.P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act or was let for manufacturing purposes

Analysis: The courts below found that there was no roofed structure on the land, only boundary walls, and a mere enclosure was not a building or accommodation within the meaning of the Act. The land had originally been let as vacant land for tethering cattle, and the later temporary construction by the tenants did not alter its character. Drying husk on the land did not amount to manufacture, and the tenancy was not shown to have been created for manufacturing purposes. The proposed future legislation also furnished no ground to postpone decision under the existing law.

Conclusion: The disputed property was not shown to be an accommodation governed by the Act, nor was it let for manufacturing purposes.

Issue (vi): Whether the appeal should be adjourned in view of the proposed U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) legislation

Analysis: The mere possibility of a new statute coming into force could not justify suspension of adjudication under the existing law. The court was bound to decide the appeal on the law then in force.

Conclusion: The request for adjournment was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The decree of ejectment and arrears of rent was upheld, and the appeal failed in its entirety.

Ratio Decidendi: A sale of immovable property is distinct from transfer of an actionable claim, a notice under Section 106 is valid if the tenancy is terminated after the statutory period notwithstanding present-tense wording, and a mere enclosure or temporary construction without a roof does not constitute accommodation within the rent-control statute.

---