Back
1918 Supreme(SC) 60
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
LORD ATKINSON, SIR JOHN EDGE, MR. AMEER ALI, AND SIR WALTER PHILLIMORE, BART.
HARIHAR BANERJI - Appellant
Versus
RAMSASHI ROY - Respondents
On Appeal from the High Court in Bengal.
Decided On : July 16, 1918.
Solicitors for appellants:Rehder & Higgs. Solicitors for respondents: Watkins & Hunter,
A notice to quit is valid if the tenant understands the landlord's intent, applying the principle ut res magis valeat quam pereat. Additionally, service via registered post is prima facie evidence of delivery, even if the receipt is signed by someone other than the addressee.
Headnote:(A) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 106 - Notice to quit - Sufficiency and Construction - A notice to quit, though not strictly accurate or consistent in its statements, may still be good and effective in law. The test of sufficiency is not what the notice would mean to a stranger ignorant of the facts, but what it would mean to tenants presumably conversant with all facts and circumstances touching the holding. Such notices are to be construed ut res magis valeat quam pereat, meaning they should be interpreted to give effect to the intention of the parties rather than to find faults that would render them defective. An erroneous statement regarding the area of the land in a schedule does not predominate over a description in the main body of the notice that clearly indicates the intention to terminate the tenancy of the entire holding for which a specific rent is paid.
(B) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 106 - Service of notice - Registered post - If a letter properly directed, containing a notice to quit, is proved to have been put into the post office, it is presumed that the letter reached its destination and was received by the person to whom it was addressed. This presumption is strengthened, not rebutted, by the fact that a receipt for the registered letter is produced signed on behalf of the addressee by some person other than the addressee himself.
Facts of the case:
Landlords brought an action for ejectment against tenants to recover possession of land, alleging that the tenancy had been determined by an effective notice to quit. The tenants contested the suit, arguing that the notice was invalid because the area mentioned in the schedule was only a small fraction of the actual holding they possessed and that the service of the notice via registered post was insufficient under the law.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the tenants were well aware that the notice referred to the entire holding for which they paid rent, and the erroneous area mentioned in the schedule did not invalidate the landlord's clear intention. Regarding service, the court held that the use of registered post and the production of receipts signed on behalf of the addressees constituted sufficient proof of delivery.
Issues: Whether a notice to quit is sufficient when it contains an erroneous description of the land area in the schedule but clearly refers to the entire holding in its main text, and whether service of a notice by registered post is valid when the receipt is signed by someone other than the addressee.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that notices to quit must be construed based on the knowledge of the tenant and the principle of ut res magis valeat quam pereat to effectuate the landlord's intent. Furthermore, under the law of evidence regarding postal service, a registered letter is presumed delivered, and a receipt signed by a third party on behalf of the addressee reinforces this presumption of delivery.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
property law
-
landlord and tenant
-
tenancy termination
- notice to quit
-
tenancy termination
-
landlord and tenant
-
practice and procedure
-
service of process
- service by registered post
-
service of process
Judgement
Appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court (April 16, 1915) affirming a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Hooghly.
The suit was brought by the first group of respondents against the appellants and three limited companies (joined as pro forma respondents) in the Munsifs Court. The plaintiffs alleged that they were the owners of certain land in village Char Ramkrishtopur, known as jama Nidhi Ram, which was in possession of the appellants as their tenants from year to year at an annual rent of Rs.25, and that the tenancy had been determined by a notice to quit at the end of the Bengali year 1317 (April 11, 1911). They claimed possession.
The appellants by their written statement admitted that the land in suit consisted of 2 bighas 2 ½ cottahs and that they paid to the plaintiffs a yearly rent of Rs.25; they, however, pleaded that they held the land in ancestral mokurari mourashi right; they also disputed the validity of the notice and its service.
The Munsif dismissed the suit, holding that the terms of the notice were insufficient and the service improper. The Subordinate Judge reversed the decision on both points and remanded the suit for trial, and the High Court, upon appeal, affirmed that decision. The only questions before their Lordships consequently were whether the notice to quit was sufficient and properly served.
The terms of the notice and the facts as to the service, which was by registered post, appear from the judgment of their Lordships.
With regard to the notice, it was admitted by the appellants that the 2 bighas 2½ cottahs of land of which they were in possession, and for which they paid Rs.25 rent to the plaintiffs, had formerly been in the possession of Nidhi Ram referred to in the notice. They disputed the validity of the notice owing to the reference to 6 cottahs, and they denied that the boundaries stated were those of the land which they held. It appeared that the appellants had leased to the defendant No. 116 cottahs of the land; the respondents alleged that the notice stated that 6 cottahs was the extent of the holding because it was so entered in their books.
1918. June 7, 10, 11. De Gruyther K.C. and Kenworthy Brown for the appellants. The notice was not an effectual notice as to the holding having regard to the reference to 6 cottahs. It was deliberately given as to that part of the holding in order to embarrass the appellants in proving their title to mokurari rights in the whole. The service was insufficient under s. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. [Reference as to service by registered post was made to Jogendro v. Dwarka Nath (( 1888) I. L. R. 15 C. 681.) and Subadini v. Durga Charan Law . (( 1900) I. L. R. 28 C. 118.)]
Branson and Dube for the respondents (being called on only as to the sufficiency of the notice). The appellants must have understood that the notice referred to the entire holding formerly in the possession of Nidhi Ram. Having regard to the authorities, it was a sufficient notice to quit.
[They were stopped.]
De Gruyther K.C. replied.
July 16. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by
LORD ATKINSON. This is an appeal against a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William, Bengal, dated April 16, 1915, which dismissed an appeal from the Subordinate Court of Hooghly, dated May 19, 1914.
The action out of which the appeal has arisen is one of ejectment, brought, not by owners or occupiers of land against persons trespassing upon it, but by landlords of a particular piece of land against their former tenants of the same to recover possession thereof on the ground that the tenancy of those tenants has been determined by an effective notice to quit duly served.
[The judgment referred at length to the proceedings upon a former suit brought by the first respondent against the appellants for arrears of rent in which Rs.25 rent was stated by the plaintiff to issue from 6 cottahs held by the appellants, and the appellants admitted that they we
