First, when the Appellant sent a quit notice dated 17.05.2012 to the Respondent Under Section 106 of the TP Act determining the tenancy and calling upon the Respondent to pay the arrears of rent and vacate the suit premises, despite receipt of the quit notice, they did not reply to it.
57. In our view, the Respondent ought to have replied to the notice at the first available opportunity, which they failed to do so. It amounts to waiver on their part to challenge the invalidity or infirmity of the quit notice including the ownership issue raised therein.
58. In the case of Parwati Bai v. Radhika MANU/SC/0372/2003 : AIR 2003 SC 3995, the question arose as to whether the tenancy was terminated in accordance with the provisions of Section 106 of the TP Act. The Defendant despite receiving the notice from the Plaintiff did not reply to it.
59. This Court held that if the Defendant does not raise any objection to the validity of quit notice at the first available opportunity, the objection will be deemed to have been waived. The following Para 6 of the decision is apposite which reads as under:
6. The singular question to be examined in the present case is whether the tenancy was terminated in accordance with the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The receipt of notice by the Defendant is admitted in the written statement. The Defendant has not raised any specific objection as to the validity of the notice. An objection as to invalidity or infirmity of notice Under Section 106 of the TP Act should be raised specifically and at the earliest; else it will be deemed to have been waived even if there exists one. It cannot, therefore, be said that the notice in the present case suffered from any infirmity. A copy of the notice was exhibited and proved by the Plaintiff as Ext. P-4.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal No. 4249 of 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 27775 of 2017)
Decided On: 20.04.2018
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
R.K. Agrawal and Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ.
No comments:
Post a Comment