Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2020 (4) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (4) TMI 891 - SC - Indian LawsSeeking release of shop by Landlord - service of notice - after purchase of the said shop, the Appellant requested the Respondent to vacate the shop, to which the Respondent initially agreed but later refused to vacate - case of the Respondent (tenant) is that there was no notice issued by the Appellant (landlord) to the Respondent (tenant), mandatorily required under Section 21(1)(a) of the Rent Control Act - HELD THAT:- The primary reason for allowing the Writ Petition was that there could be no presumption of service of notice as required under the Proviso to Section 21(1)(a) of the Rent Control Act. The finding of the fact with regard to comparative hardship of the landlord being higher than that of the tenant, as recorded by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority, has not been disturbed by the High Court, except for a mere mention in passing in the later part of the judgment, which cannot be considered to have upset the finding of fact with regard to comparative hardship, as recorded by the Authorities. From Section 21(1)(a) of the Rent Control Act, it is clear that no particular mode of giving notice by the landlord to the tenant has been provided for, meaning thereby that the same could be given orally or in writing; and if in writing, it is not necessary that it should be sent only by registered post. What is required is that "the landlord has given a notice in that behalf to the tenant". Thus, it is clear that evidence adduced on affidavit was admissible before the Prescribed Authority. In the facts of the present case, when the Appellant (landlord) had filed the photocopy of the receipt of having sent the notice under certificate of posting, along with an affidavit, which was accepted by the Prescribed Authority, and coupled with the attending circumstances as noticed by the Prescribed Authority, a specific finding of fact was recorded that due notice, as required Under Section 21 of the Rent Control Act, had been sent by the Appellant (landlord) and received by the Respondent (tenant), which is fully justified in law. The judgment of the Writ Court is set aside and the release application of the Appellant (landlord), which was allowed by the Prescribed Authority, and affirmed by the Appellate Authority, stands affirmed - application allowed.
|