Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:2572 Court No. - 4 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3165 of 2021 Petitioner :- Hridesh Kumar Respondent :- Dinesh Kumar And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Jitendra Singh,Sumit Goyal Counsel for Respondent :- Anil Sharma,Raj Mohan Saggi,Shikhar Tripathi,Shrey Sharma Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Sumit Goyal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Shrey Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. By means of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, petitioner has questioned the order passed by the court sitting in revision, whereby it has reversed the findings of the trial judge qua validity of notice issued under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 determining the tenancy. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that both the courts have held that the constructions being of the year 1992, to the building in question, the Act namely The U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act No.13 of 1972) does not apply and while the trial judge held the notice issued to the tenant-respondent under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act to be valid notice to determine the tenancy. It had been clearly stated in the notice that property was purchased by the petitioner and that tenant-respondent had become tenant of the petitioner and was liable to pay arrears of rent and accordingly notice was issued terminating the tenancy. However, the courts sitting in revision has wholly erroneously held the notice to be invalid because the petitioner did not make any statement, as to whether, he intended to get the premises in question vacated and that he had not been able to prove that the notice was issued by him. It is also submitted that court sitting in revision has further held that since the notice did not contain terms and conditions of the lease, therefore, it was invalid. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records, the only question that arises for consideration of this Court is as to whether the notice sent by the petitioner to the tenant-respondent on 17.08.2004 was a valid notice within the provisions as contained in Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 in the face of the fact that Act No.13 of 1972 did not apply to the building in question. 4. I have gone through the findings of the trial judge where the trial judge has very categorically recorded that the notice contained recitals to the effect that the property was purchased by the petitioner from the erstwhile owner on 07.05.2004 and ever since then, the tenant-respondent had become tenant of the present petitioner and hence was liable to pay the rent continuously and for non payment though he wanted to terminate the tenancy and accordingly issued a notice with 30 days' period in advance. The trial court returned a finding to the effect that notice was sufficient to determine the tenancy in view of the fact that Act No.13 of 1972 did not apply. The court sitting in revision, though, has upheld the findings of the trial judge as to the non-applicability of Act No.13 of 1972 but has held the notice to be invalid only on the ground that it did not show intention of the landlord to get the premises vacated, inasmuch as, the notice did not contain terms and conditions of the lease and also that the notice did not contain signatures. The Court is surprised how the finding has come to be returned to the effect that the notice did not contain its signatures when there was no such issue, nor the trial court was required to address the point on the same. The notice was being questioned only on the ground that after the purchase of property, no information was sent. It was also not the ground taken before the trial court that the notice did not contain the terms and conditions of the lease. In considered view of this Court, once a notice in advance is sent by a landlord, it is sufficient itself to determine the tenancy in the face of the fact the Act No.13 of 1972 did not apply to demised premises. A notice was sent with 30 days in advance shall have to be taken to be a notice terminating the tenancy. The only caveat that can be put by the tenant that no notice was ever served, nor there was any proof of the service, but there is no such case in hand. The other caveat that could have been placed, if any, that tenant could have enjoyed statutory benefit under Section 20(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 had it been a case of applicability of Act No.13 of 1972, which is also not the case of tenant either. 5. In view of the above, therefore, the findings returned by the court sitting in revision that the notice was invalid to terminate the tenancy of the tenant-respondent is absolutely perverse. The judgment deserves to be set aside and the judgment passed by the trial judge deserves to be restored. 6. In view of the above, this revision-petition succeeds and is allowed. 7. The judgment and order dated 15.01.2021 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bijnor in SCC Revision No.06 of 2018 is hereby set aside to the extent it holds the notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 dated 07.05.2004 to be invalid to non-suit the landlord-petitioner. The other findings are upheld and also the judgment of the trial court for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction of the tenant- respondent is upheld. 8. There will be no order as to costs. Order Date :- 6.1.2025 Ashutosh Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad