The Orissa High Court has reinforced that a lessor must issue a minimum 15-day notice to a tenant holding over before attempting to evict them, as mandated under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.
In a regular second appeal, Justice Sashikanta Mishra highlighted the distinctions between 'tenant holding over', 'tenant at sufferance', and 'trespasser'. He clarified that when a tenant continues possession after the lease expires with the lessor’s consent, they are categorized as a 'tenant holding over', whereas without such consent, the tenant is considered a 'tenant at sufferance', a term designed to differentiate them from a trespasser.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND The respondents filed for eviction of the appellant from the rented house after his failure to pay the increased rent of Rs. 800 per month. Initially, the appellant had paid Rs. 300 per month under a lease agreement executed by the respondents’ predecessor. After the predecessor's death, the appellant continued paying rent to the respondents. Despite being asked to vacate and clear arrears, the appellant failed to comply, prompting the respondents to issue an advocate’s notice.
The appellant contested the eviction suit, arguing that no valid notice under Section 106 had been issued before initiating the eviction process. The trial court ruled that a Section 106 notice was necessary and dismissed the suit. The respondents appealed, claiming that since the appellant continued possession beyond the one-year lease term under an unregistered lease, he became a month-to-month tenant, and no formal notice was required under Section 111(a) of the Act. Furthermore, the first appellate court argued that the appellant was a 'tenant at sufferance' and could be evicted without prior notice.
COURT'S OBSERVATIONS Upon examining the case, the High Court admitted the appeal and framed the substantial question of whether the first appellate court’s decision to dispense with a Section 106 notice was legally sound. The Court emphasized that the appellant had been originally leased the property for one year. When the lease expired, the appellant continued to pay rent and stay in possession, with no clear attempt by the respondents to end his tenancy. The respondents did not present evidence to show they had made efforts to remove the appellant or enforce the enhanced rent.
The Court reviewed the nature of the appellant's tenancy, referring to a previous case where the distinction between 'tenant holding over' and 'tenant at sufferance' was explained. It concluded that as the appellant’s continued possession was with the assent of the lessors, he qualified as a 'tenant holding over' and was entitled to the protection of Section 106.
Justice Mishra held that the first appellate court's conclusion that no Section 106 notice was required was erroneous. The Court ruled that the appellant, as a 'tenant holding over', was entitled to be served with a valid notice before eviction. As no such notice was issued, the High Court upheld the trial court’s decision to dismiss the eviction suit. The judgment underscores the importance of following legal procedures, particularly the requirement of notice under Section 106, in tenancy disputes.
Case Title: Sanatan Bardhan (since dead) represented through her L.Rs Mana Mohini Bardhan & Ors. v. Ranu Sen & Ors.
