Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Rattan Chand v. Madan Mohan Sharma - RSA-969-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 1669 (16 March 2006)


R.S.A. No. 969 of 2006 ( O&M )

DATE OF DECISION : 20.03.2006

Rattan Chand



Madan Mohan Sharma


Present: Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate,

for the appellant.

* * *

The defendant has filed this Regular Second Appeal against the judgments and decree, passed by both the Courts below, whereby suit of the plaintiff for possession and recovery of the arrears of rent has been decreed and the plaintiff has been held entitled to recover the damages to the tune of Rs. 1,100/- per month from the appellant from the date of filing of the suit till vacation of the premises.

2. The aforesaid suit was filed after terminating lease of the appellant by issuing notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Both the Courts below have recorded a finding of fact that the lease in question was from month to month, therefore, only 15 days notice was required which has been given in the instant case.

3. Counsel for the appellant has made two fold submissions. Firstly, he has submitted that the appellant was running the sweet shop in the demised premises, which is a manufacturing process, therefore, six months notice should have been given and the 15 days notice issued in the instant case is not valid. Secondly, he submits that in the notice, the demised premises has been mentioned as two rooms, whereas actually the appellant is running the sweet shop in the demised premises, a manufacturing process, therefore, notice was not valid.

4. I do not find any substance in either of the submissions raised by counsel for the appellant. The running of the sweet shop, in my opinion, is not a manufacturing process. Even otherwise, the Supreme Court in Shri Janki Devi Bhagat Trust, Agra v. Ram Swarup Jain (Dead) by LRs, (1995) 5 Supreme Court Cases 314 has held as under :- "... Therefore, even though the lease may be for a manufacturing purpose, since the lease was not from year to year, six months' notice was not required. A manufacturing lease which is not from year to year does not require six months' notice of termination. It will fall in the second half of Section 106, requiring fifteen days' notice of termination. A lease from month to month or a lease other than a lease from year to year is terminable by fifteen days' notice." In the instant case, it has been found by both the Courts below that the lease was from month to month, therefore, notice of 15 days was rightly given. As far as the second submission is concerned, no prejudice has been caused to the appellant, as clear 15 days' notice was given to him to vacate the demised premises. It makes no difference that in the notice, the respondent has described the premises as two rooms, as there was no dispute regarding identification of the property. In these circumstances, no ground for interference in this Regular Second Appeal is made out.

5. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal.

6. Dismissed. March 20, 2006 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.