This writ petition challenges the termination of a tenancy via notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the lower courts' finding that such termination was valid regardless of forfeiture clauses.
Writ petition dismissed for lack of merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No.366 of 2021 (M/S)
Lal Singh Bisht ….Petitioner/Defendant Vs.
Dhan Singh Sajwan ….Respondent/Plaintiff
Advocate : Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for the petitioner.
Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
T his is a tenant’s writ petition, which is arising out of the judgment of 25.09.2018 which was rendered by Judge Small Causes/Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Tehri Garhwal in S.C.C. Suit No.01 of 2017, Sri Dhan Singh Sajwan vs. Shri Lal Singh, whereby the respondent/landlord by issuance of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, had simplicitor terminated the tenancy of the petitioner from the tenement in dispute, which was the subject matter of suit. The fact pertaining to the issuance of notice and its service upon the petitioner on 20.04.2017, determining the tenancy and demanding the petitioner to vacate the tenement and hand over the vacant possession of the disputed shop in question, is a fact which was apparently as per evidence and concurrently in view of the findings records, are affirmed by both the courts below. Consequently, on issuance of notice, on initiation of the aforesaid proceedings of SCC Suit, the petitioner had put in appearance and filed his objection by way of a written statement Paper No.22(C) and the fact of being a tenant of the disputed shop and existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant was not disputed. Consequently, the controversy in the suit had boiled down on one major issue, which was framed by the learned trial court which is referred to hereunder:-
2
“(1) Whether the plaintiff has lawfully determined the tenancy of the defendant over suit property? If so its effect.”
3
tenement in question to meet his need for the purposes of expansion of the business of his son.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 09.03.2021
Arti/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the requirement of forfeiture under Section 111(g) and saving under Section 111(h) has any bearing on the validity of termination under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Whether the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts on the validity of notice under Section 106 warrant dismissal of the writ petition.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Lal Singh Bisht
Dhan Singh Sajwan
Sharad Kumar Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
