MANU MIAH vs MD. ISHAQUE MIAH
The petitioner, a monthly tenant governed by the Transfer of Property Act and the Premises Rent Control Ordinance, sought special leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of East Pakistan affirming his ejectment. The respondent landlord had filed an ejectment suit after issuing a notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act on the ground of default in rent. While the trial Court dismissed the ejectment prayer due to a finding regarding non-service of notice, the first appellate Court and the High Court concurrently found that the notice was duly served and the petitioner was indeed a defaulter. The Supreme Court considered whether the tenancy was duly determined by notice and whether the petitioner was a defaulter. Holding that the concurrent factual findings regarding the valid service of notice by registered post and default in rent were supported by evidence, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the concurrent decisions. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact regarding the service of notice to quit and default in rent, based on credible evidence such as the testimony of the postal-peon, will not be interfered with in second appeal or special leave.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding the service of a notice to quit can be interfered with by the Supreme Court?
- Does the evidence of a postal-peon suffice to prove the due service of a notice sent by registered post?
- Whether a tenancy governed by the Transfer of Property Act is validly determined upon proof of default and proper notice?
- Section 106, Transfer of Property Act
1. M. R. KHAN, J.-The petitioner was a monthly tenant under the respondent in respect of certain premises under the Double --moorings Police Station in the district of Chittagong. The premises was governed by the Transfer of the Property Act and the Premises Rent Control Ordinance. The tenancy was determined by a notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act on the ground that the petitioner was a defaulter. After the determination of the tenancy by notice, the respondent brought a suit for ejectment of the petitioner. The points that arose for consideration in the suit were whether the tenancy was duly determined by notice and whether the petitioner was defaulter. The trial Court found the petitioner to be a defaulter, but held that no notice to quit was duly served on the petitioner. Accordingly, the trial Court granted a decree for arrear of rent, but refused the prayer for ejectment. On appeal, the first appellate Court held that the petitioner was a defaulter and that the tenancy was duly determined by a valid notice. Accordingly, a decree for ejectment was passed by that Court. On second appeal by the petitioner, a learned Single Judge of the High Court of East Pakistan agreed with the findings of the first appellate Court and, accordingly, affirmed the decree for ejectment. The petition for special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court.
2. The points agitated in the High Court have been raised in the petition. It appears that the notice for determination of the tenancy was sent by registered post with acknowledgement due and that it was duly served by the postal-peon. The evidence of the postal-peon in this regard was accepted by the High Court and the first appellate Court. All the- Courts below have found the petitioner to be a defaulter.
3. Thus, there is no merit in this petition. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.