% 09.08.2011 v. Mr. Harish Uppal, Advocate for the

12 Rule 6 CPC. It is not disputed that the appellant, Vijaya Bank is the tenant. The relationship of landlord and tenant is therefore admitted. The rate of rent is also undoubtedly more than Rs.3,500/- per month and therefore the premises are outside the protection of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. In each of these cases, a legal notice of termination of tenancy was sent. On the aspect of termination of tenancy, I have had an occasion to consider O the issue in detail in the case of MIs. Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd. vs. MIs. Jasbir Singh Chaddha (HUF & Anr. in RFA No.179/2011 dated 25th March, 2011 wherein I have held that assuming that there is a doubt of service of the legal notice, the service of summons of the suit can be taken as a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of the Property Act,

1882. I have also held that along with the suit, copy of the notice RFA No.403/2011, RFA No.405/2011, RFA No.410/2011, 2011:DHC:17675 terminating tenancy is sent to the defendant/tenant and which once again amounts to the service of notice of termination of tenancy. I have thereafter in the judgment of Jeevan Diesels (supra) held that considering the intendment of the amendment of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act by Act 3 of 2003 read with Order 7 Rule 7 CPC it can be held that on service of the summons of the suit, and expiry of 15 days thereafter, the tenancy would have been terminated. I am informed • that a challenge was laid to this judgment and the SLP against the same being no.15740/2011 has been dismissed by the Supreme Court vide its order dated 7.7.2011. In view of the above, I do not find any disputed questioni of fact which requires trial. No other point or issue is pressed or urged before me. The appeals are accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. v i4w,tw AUGUST09, 2011 VALMIKI J.MEHTA,J. ak RFA No.403/2011, RFA No.405/2011, RFA No.410/2011,