Haidri Begam Vs. Nathu

act no. iv of 1882 (transfer of property act), section 106 - landlord and tenant--suit in ejectment--notice to quit--denial of landlord's title by defendant before suit. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. teacher employed in the school run by cantonment board being covered under rule 2 (f) of the cantonment fund servants rules, 1937 can file appeal under rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah. lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. -- maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978 [act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised by director, the divisional board or state..........for ejectment, its decision did not operate as res judicata qua the claim for rent. that is a mistaken contention. a court of small causes is competent to try this suit so far as it relates to the cause of action with reference to the rent, and the fact that the court of small causes is not competent to try this suit so far as it is a suit for ejectment, does not make section 13 of the act inapplicable on the question of the rent. the suit, so far as the claim for rent was concerned, was rightly dismissed, and we dismiss this appeal, so far as it relates to the claim for rent, with proportionate costs.2. the suit for possession of the house by ejectment of the defendant was dismissed on the ground that no notice determining the tenancy as required by section 106 of act no. iv of 1882 had been given. a notice was not necessary in this case, as, in the prior suit to which we have referred, this defendant had denied the plaintiff's title and denied that there was any contract of tenancy between them. the question as to whether in such a case a notice is necessary has been considered in several cases in this court: but we think that the law is now well settled, and we cannot better express it than by quoting the judgment of muttusami ayyar and best, jj., in unhamma devi v. vaikunta hegde i.l.r. 17 mad. 218. what those learned judges said was: 'nor is there any doubt that the tenant forfeits this right to notice by denying the landlord's title prior to suit. it is also settled law that the denial of title for the first time in the suit does not disentitle the tenant to notice, for the reason that the plaintiff is bound to show that at the date of suit he had a complete cause of action; and subsequent denial of title, even if false, does not release the landlord from proving his case or amount to a waiver by the defendant of his right to notice.' the same subject is referred to in the judgment in dodhu v. madhavrao narayan gadre i.l.r. 18 bom. 110. we set aside so much.....