LORD TOMLIN, LORD THANKERTON, LORD MACMILLAN, LORD WRIGHT, SIR GEORGE LOWNDES
BENOY KRISHNA DAS – Appellant
Versus
SALSICCIONI (DEFENDANTS) – Respondent
Judgement
Appeal (No. 107 of 1931) from a decree of the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction (August 13, 1930) reversing a decree of the Court in its original jurisdiction (April 17, 1930).
The respondents were tenants from the appellants of premises in Calcutta, having remained in possession after the expiry of a lease for residential purposes dated June 29, 1921, for four years. The appeal arose out of suits brought by the appellants against the respondents in the Small Causes Court for the recovery of rent for successive months ; the suits were consolidated and transferred to the High Court.
The sole question arising upon the appeal was whether a notice given by the respondents on February 1, 1928, to terminate the tenancy was a valid notice.
The trial judge (Buckland J.) held that the notice was invalid, as it did not expire at the end of a month of the tenancy as required by s. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Upon appeal the decision was reversed by Rankin C.J. and C. C. Ghose J., who held that the notice was valid and accordingly dismissed the suits.
The facts, and the material terms of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, ss. 106 and 110, appear from the judgme
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.