ORDER
1. This is a tenant’s revision petition against the decision of the Appellate Authority reversing on appeal the order of the Rent Controller dismissing the landlord’s application for ejectment.
2. The house in dispute is situate in Gurdaspur and it was leased out by its owner Shri Moti Ram, Advocate in 1927, in favour of Shri Devi Dayal, Advocate. The latter died somewhere in 1953-54 and thereafter the former continued receiving rent from Shrimati Suhag Rani widow of Shri Devi Dayal. In 1957, Shri Moti Ram partitioned hi entire property and this house came to the share of his son Shri Sukh Dev, Advocate. In January 1961, Shri Sukh Dev filed an application under S. 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, for the ejectment of Suhag Rani from the house in question on the ground of non-payment of rent. Since the arrears of rent were paid by the tenant on the first date of hearing, that application was dismissed.
On 7th June, 1967, another application under Section 13 of the Rent Act was made by Shri Sukh Dev against Shrimati Suhag Rani, her daughter Shrimati Upma and Shrimati Rani, and three ground of ejectment were taken. One was non-payment of rent since May 1965, the second was that Suhag Rani had transferred her rights in favour of her daughter Shrimati Upma since 1961 and had sublet a portion of this house to Shrimati Rani without the written consent of the landlord and the third was that Suhag Rani had ceased to occupy the house in dispute since 1961 without any reasonable cause and was staying with her son at Delhi.
3. This application was contested by the tenants and on the pleadings of the parties, seven issues were framed. Since the arrears of rent were paid on the first date of hearing, this ground of ejectment was no longer available to the landlord.
4. The Rent Controller dismissed the application holding that Shrimati Suhag Rani had neither transferred her rights in favour of her daughter Upma nor sublet any portion of the house to Shrimati Rani. It was also held that she had not ceased occupying this house since 1961.
5. Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller, the landlord went in appeal before the Appellant Authority. His appeal was accepted and it was found by the said Authority that Suhag Rani had transferred her rights in favour of her daughter Upma and also sublet a portion of the house to Shrimati Rani without the written consent of the landlord. It was also held that Suhag Rani was not living in the house since 1961.
6. It may be mentioned that before the Appellant Authority, both Suhag Rani and Upma made an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying that they be allowed to raise the plea that since notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was not issued by the landlord terminating the tenancy before filing the ejectment application, the said application should have been dismissed on that ground.
7. This application was contested by the landlord and the Appellant Authority dismissed the same observing that since no such plea was taken by the tenant in her written statement and this point was not even debated before the Rent Controller, this objection would be deemed to have been waived by the tenant and could not be allowed to be raised at that late state. For this he placed reliance on my decision in Raj Kumar v. Gurmitinder Singh, (1968), 79 Pun LR 672.
8. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the Appellant Authority had erred in law in rejecting the application filed by the tenant for being allowed to take the additional plea that the ejectment application should be dismissed, because no notice under Section 106, Transfer of Property Act, had been given by the landlord to the tenant before filing that application. Reliance for that submission was placed on my decision in Smt. Gargi Devi v. Som Dutt, 1969 Ren CR 904 (Punj).
9. I was inclined to accept this contention when it was brought to my notice that in the written statement filed by Suhag Rani, she had taken up the plea that the eviction application was not competent, because there was no relationship of landlord and tenant existing between the parties and further that the landlord has no locus standi to file the application under Section 13 of the Rent Act, as he was not a landlord of the premises in question. It has been ruled in a Bench decision of this Court in Sada Ram v. Gajjan, 91970) 72 Pun LR 223 = (AIR 1970 Punj 511) that the denial of the relationship of the landlord and tenant by the tenant in his written statement to a suit for ejectment determines a tenancy forthwith, thus giving the right to the landlord to the possession of the eased property, when the lease is not for a fixed period but from year to year or at will. A year to year tenancy or a tenancy at will gets determined by such a denial or renunciation of title.
On the basis of this authority, by which I am bound, sitting singly, it has to be held in the present case that the tenancy had been determined by Suhag Rani’s taking up this plea in the written statement. This is the precise reason for which a notice under Section 106, Transfer of Property Act, has to be given by the landlord to the tenant before filing the ejectment application under Section 13 of the Rent Act. My attention was not invited to any decision where it had been laid down that in a rent case the only way the tenancy could be determined was by a notice under Section 106, Transfer of Property Act. if the idea of giving a notice under Section 106, Transfer of Property Act, is merely to determine the tenancy, then it is also undisputed that a tenancy, under the law, can be determined in any of the various methods mentioned in Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act. The landlord, therefore, is not precluded from showing that in a particular case, the tenancy has been determined irrespective of the fact whether any notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is given to the tenant or not. According to the decision in Sada Ram’s case, (1970) 72 Pun LR 223 = (AIR 1970 Punj 511), therefore, it has to be held that in the instant case the tenancy had been determined by Suhag Rani’s taking the particular plea mentioned above in the written statement filed by her. That being so it was not necessary for the landlord to issue a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act to the tenant. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, consequently, fails.
10. Regarding the grounds of ejectment, it has been found by the Appellant Authority that Suhag Rani had ceased to occupy the house in question for the last about six years without any reasonable cause. It has also been found that she had transferred her rights under the lease to her daughter Upma and that a portion of the premises in dispute had been sublet to Shrimat Rani without the consent in writing of the landlord. All these are findings of fact and they have been arrived at after consideration of the entire evidence produced in the case. It has not been shown by the learned counsel for the petitioners that these findings are in any way vitiated. It is common ground that all these are valid grounds for ejectment under Section 13 of the Rent Act.
11. In view of what I have said above, this revision petition fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, however, I leave the parties to bear their own costs throughout. The petitioners are given three months’ time to vacate the premises, provided they deposit the arrears of rent in the Court of the Rent Controller within six weeks from today.
12. Petition dismissed.