CHIMAN LALversusMISHRILAL

                                                                                    39


                                                                                          A
                                CHIMAN LAL

                                          v.

                                  MISHRILAL
                                                                                          B
                               November 12, 1984

       [R. S. PATHAK, D. P. MADON AND M. P. THAKKAR, JJ.J

        Madhya Pradesh Acco11unodution Control Act, 1961, section 12(l)(a}, scope
of-Notice of demand referred to in section 12(1)(a) to be valid must inter-alia           c
relate to the acco1nmodation actually rented to the tenant and not any other acco111-
modation-A defective notice vitiates the entire trial as the suit itself is not rnain-
tainable-Distinction between notice and the plaint explained-Amending the plaint
with the pennission of the Court does not cure the defective notice.

       The respondent landlord issued a notice dated October 21, 1969 to the
appellant demanding arrears of rent in respect of accommodation, which accor-             D
ding to the respondent, consisted of a portion of a shop and a verandah and
terminated the tenancy; and he filed a suit for eviction under section 12(1)(a) of
the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Act, 1961 and for payment of arrcitrs of
rent totalling Rs. 2,550. The appellant after depositing the entire arrears as
required under section 13(1) of the Act contested the suit disputing the area and
 portion of accommodation tenanted and claimed expenditure incurred by him
for repairs. The trial court dismissed the suit accepting the contention of the           E
appellant that since the respondent has not correctly described the extent of the
 premises in the notice tenninating the tenancy, the tenancy had not been validly
terminated. An appeal having been dismissed the respondent filed a second
 appeal before the High Court. The High Court granted permission to' the res·
pondent for an amendment of the plaint and relying on the decision of the
Supreme Court in V. Dhanapal Chettiar v. Yesodai Amma/1 [19801 1 S.C.R. 334
that no notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was necessary,           F
 allowed the second appeal. Hence the tenant's appeal after ob'ta:infng Special
 Leave of the Court.

       Allowing the Appeal, the Court

       HELD : 1. The notice referred to in seotion !2(1)(a) of the Madhya
Pradesh Acco1nmodation Control Act, 1961 inust be a notice demanding the                  G
rental arrears in respect of accommodation actUally let to the tenant. It must
be a notice (a) demanding the arrears of rent in respect of the accommodation
let to the tenant and (b) the ar. ears of rent must be legally recoverable from the
tenant. There can be no a(' mission by a tenant that arrears of rent are due
unless they relate to the acco1ni11odatiori let to hin1. A valid notite demanding
arrear& of.rent relatable ·to the accollllllodation· let to {ho:tenant from whichJio. ,   H.
                                                                               ..
                                                                                ,
                             Sut>P.EME COURT REPORTS                   [1985] 2 S.C.R.

A    is sought to be evicted is a vital ingredient of the conditions \l,rhich govern the
     main• 0 fnability of the suit, for unless a valid demand is made no complaint can
     be laid of non-compliance with it, and consequently no suit for rejectment of the
     tenant in respect of the accommodation will lie on that ground. [-1.3 F-H; 44 AJ

            1 : 2. It is true that amendment of the plaint in the suit in order to relate
     to the accommOdation <isserted by the aprelJant does rela!e back to the institu-
B    tion of the suit, but it cannot amend an invalid notice carli~r issued te[minating
     the tenancy. The notice of demand is an act indepen{_:ent of the institution of
     the suit. [44 A·B, DJ

            The notice and the plaint are two distinct n1alters, different by nature,
     designed for different purposes and located in two different roints of time. They
     operate in two different planes, and are related insofar only that one is a condi·
C    tion for maintaining the other. [44 B·C]
                                                                                            •
             l : 3. The notice of demand dated October 21, 1969 served by the respon·
      dent on the appellant was invalid and, therefore, the suit was not maintainable.
     It is clear that there is a substantial difference between the accommodation men·
     tioned in the notke and the accon1modation let to the appellant. It must be
     taken that the notice relates to acco1nmodation which cannot be effectively iden-
     tified with the accommodation constituting the tenancy. This is not a case of a
     mere misdefcription of the accommodation v.·here both parties knew perfectly
D
     well that lhe notice referred to accomn1odation let to the tenant. Nor is it a case
     where the discrepancy between 1he accommodation alleged by the landlord and
     that actually let to the tenant is margiaal or insubstantial. The proceedings
     show that there was a serious dispute between the parties as to the material ex~
     t.ent of the accon1modation let by the one to the other. No congruency between
     the two versions was possible. Not at least until the respondent was compelled
     to seek an amendment of his plaint in the High Court <it the stage of second
E
     appeal. [43 B·El

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3356 of.1979.
          Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and order dated
    the 12th October, 1979 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Iudore
    Bench) in Second Appeal No. 148 of 1976.
F
          R.K. Garg, S.K. Gambhir, Mrs. Ashok Mahajan and Mrs. Sunita
    Kirplani for the Appellant.

           V.K. Jafn, B.P. Singh and Anjeet Kumar for the Respondent.

           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
          PATHAK, J. This is a tenant's appeal, by special leave, against a
    decree of the High C¢1)rt of Madhya Pradesh allowing the landlord's
    second appeal in a suit for eviction.

          The respon\'.lent;" as landlord, filed ·a suit for the evictiorr of the
H   appellattt tenant .ont'&.e ground tbat'the appeiiant had neither paid nor
                CHIMAN LAL v. M!SHR.i LAL (Pathak, J.)               41

tendered the arrears of rent legally recoverable from him. The plaint      A
recited that the appellant had taken a portion of a shop and a
verandah on the ground floor on rent at Rs. 150 per month for the
purpose of his cloth business, that the appellant had not paid the
arrears of rent totalling Rs. 2,550 for the period June 26, 1968 to
October 11, J 969, and that he was, therefore, liable to eviction on the
ground set forth in section 12(1)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Accom-
                                                                           B
modation Control Act, 1961.
      In his written statement the appellant pleaded that the respon·
dent had described the tenanted premises incorrectly, that in fact the
premises consisted of an entire shop, a kotha behind the shop and a
verandah in front of the shop, that the expenditure on repairs to the
premises undertaken by the appellant had to be adjusted against the
                                                                           c
arrears of rent and that the notice dated October 21, 1969 terminating
the tenancy was invalid.
      On receiving the writ of summons in the suit, the appellant
deposited the arrears of rent in compliance \Vith •· 13(1) of the Act,
                                                                           D
but further compliance with s. 13(1) was not effected in as much as
the rent which should have been deposited regularly from month to
month was not deposited for several months.
       The trial court found that the expenditure claimed by the
appellant on repairing the premises had not been proved. It found
further that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of s. 13(1)
                                                                           E
of the Act as he had failed to deposit the monthly rent regularly
during the pendency of the suit. But it agreed with the appellant that
the respondent had not correctly described the extent of the premises in
the notice terminating the tenancy, and holding that the tenancy bad
not been validly terminated it dismissed the suit. The respondent filed
an appeal, and that appeal \'las dismissed. The respondent then pre-       F
ferred a second appeal, and during the pendency of the appeal the
 High Court permitted the respondent to amend the plaint so that
references to the tenanted premises now included the entire accommo-
dation claimed by the appellant. In consequence, the suit now
related to that accommodation. Thereafter, the High Court, by its
                                                           .
 judgment and decree dated October 12' 1979 allowed the second
 appeal. It held that no notice under section 106 of the Transfer of       G
Property Aet terminating the tenancy was required in view of the
 decision of this Court in V. Dhanapal Chettiar v. Yeshodai Ammaz.m
and it affirmed the finding of the subordinate courts that the appel-
 lant had failed to prove payment for repairing the premises.
  (I) .[1980] 1 S.C.R. 334.
                       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (1985) ~ S.C.ll.
A         On a conspectus of the entire proceeding it would appear that
    the only ground on which the subordinate courts dismissed the suit is
    that the notice dated October 21, 1969 did not validly terminate the
    tenancy as it referred to a part only of the tenanted premises, while
    the High Court, in second appeal, proceeded on the view that no
    notice terminating the tenancy was required at all and, therefore,
B
    after permitting the respondent to amend his plaint in order to bring
    the entire tenanted premises within the purview of the suit, it decreed
    the suit.

          S. 12(1)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control
    Act, 1961 provides :
c
              "12. Restriction on eviction of tenants,-(!) Notwith-
         standing anything to the contrary contained in any other
                                                                               •
         law or contract, no suit shall be filed in any Civil Court
         against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation
         except on one or more of the following grounds only,
         namely :
D
         (a) that the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the whole
             of the arrears of the rent legally recoverable from him
             -..ithin two months of the date on which a notice of
             demand for the arrears of rent has been served on him
             by the landlord in the prescribed manner."
E
          S. 12(3) prohibits the court from making an order of eviction
    on the ground specified in s. 12(1)(a) if the tenant makes payment or
    deposit as required by s. 13. And s. 13 provides :
              "13. When tenant can get benefit of protection against
F        eviction-(!) On a suit or proceeding being instituted by
         the landlord on any of the grounds referred to in section 12,
         the tenant shall, within one month of the service of writ of
         summons on him or within such further time as the Court
         may, on an application made to it, allow in this behalf,
         deposit in the Court or pay to the landlord an amount cal-            •
         culated at the rate of rent at which it was paid for the
G                •
         period for which the tenant may have made default includ-
         ing the period subsequent thereto up to the end of the
         month previous to that iu which the deposit or payment is
         made, and shall thereafter continue to deposit or pay,
         month by month, by the 15th of each succeeding month a
         sum equivalent to the rent at that rate."
                   CH!MAN i.At Y. MISHRi LAL (Pathak, J.)

           It is urged by the appellant that an essential condition of the
    maintainability of the suit is non-compliance by the tenant with a
    valid notice demanding the rental arrears, and the notice to be valid
    must inter alia, relate to the accom•nodation rented to the tenant and
   not any other accommodation. It is pointed out that in the present
   case the notice dated October 21, 1969 did not ralate to the entire
    accomm.odation let to the appellant but only to a lesser part of it.
   There is substance in the contention. The notice dated October 21,
                                                                              B
    1969 is a notice demanding the arrears of rent in respect of accommo-
   dation which, according to the respondent, consisted of a portion of
   a shop and a verandah. The appellant, on the other hand, pleaded
   that )le had been let the entire shop, the verandah and also a kotha.
   The subordinate courts held, on the evidence, that the appellant was
   right. It is apparent, therefore, that there is a substantial difference   c
  between the accommodation mentioned in the notice and the accom-
  modation actually let to the appellant. lt must be taken that the
  notice relates to accommodation which cannot be effectively identified
  with the accommodation constituting the tenancy. This is not a case
  of a mere misdescription of the accommodation where both parties
  kne,)V perfectly well that the notice referred to accommodation let to      D
  the tenant. Nor is it a case where the discrepancy between the
  accommodation alleged by the landlord and that actually let to the
  tenant is marginal or insubstantial. The proceedings show that there
  was a serious dispute between the parties as to the material extent of
 the accommodation let by the one to the other. No congruency
 between the two versions was possible. Not at least until the respon-        E
 dent was compelled to seek an amendment of his plaint in the High
 Court at the stage of second appeal. Learned counsel for the respon-
 dent points out that there was no dispute that the rent for the accom-
 modation was Rs. 150 per month, and urges that is the amount of
 the arrears of rent is admitted between the parties that is all that
 matters. To our mind, that is not sufficient. The notice referred to         F
 ins. J2(l)(a) must be a notice demanding the rental arrears in respect
 of acc01nmodation actually let to the tenant. It must be a notice
(a) demanding the arrears of rent in respect of the accommodation
let to the tenant and (b) the arrears of rent must be legally recover-
able from the tenant. There can be no admission by a tenant that
                                                                              G
arrears of rent are due unless they relate to the accommodation let to
him. A valid notice demanding arrears of rent relatable to the
accommo<;lation let to the tenant from which he is sought to be
evicted is a vital ingredient of the conditions which govern the main-
tainability of the suit, for unless a valid demand is made no complaint
can be laid of non-compliance with it, and consequently no suit for
     44                 SUPREME COURt REPORTS               (198~) l S.C.R.

A    ejectment of the tenant in respect of the accommodation will lie on
     that ground.

           It is contended by learned counsel for the respondent that the
     plaint in the suit was amended in order to relate to the accomm0-
     dation asserted by the appellant and that the amendment rotates back
     to the institution of the suit. The submission can be of no assistanc•
B
    to the respondent. We are concerned here not with the subject
    matter of the suit but with the validity of the notice which is a prior
    condition of the maintainability of the suit. The notice of demand
    is an act independent of the institution of the suit. The ROtice and
    the plaint are two distinct matters, different by nature, designed for
c   different purposes and located in two different points of time. They
    operate in two different planes, and are related insofar only that one
    is a condition for maintaining the other.

          Accordingly, we hold that the notice of demand dated October
    21, 1969 served by the respondent on the appellant was invalid and
D   therefore the euit was not maintainable. In the circumstances, we
    consider it unnece<5ary to enter upon the other points raised befo,re
    us on behalf of the appellant.

          In the result, we all"w the appeal, set aside the judgment and
    order of the High Court and dismiss the suit. In the circumstances
    of the case, there is no order as to costs.




    S.R.                                                  Appeal allowed.