C. V. N. SASTRY, J.

( 1 ) THIS second appeal by the defendant- tenant arises out of a suit filed by his landlord against him for ejectment and for recovery of the arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation. The tenancy is admitted and there is also not much controversy about the facts. The suit premises was leased out by the plaintiff to the defendant for running a Tutorial college initially for a period of 11 months under a rental agreement dated 1-5-1987 marked as Ex. B-3. The lease was renewed for a further period of 11 months under ex. B-2, dated 1-7-1988. It was again renewed for another period of 11 months under Ex. A-1 dated 1-7-1989 on a monthly rental of Rs. 1,300/ -. On 27-8-1990 the plaintiff issued a quit notice marked as ex. A-2 terminating the tenancy with effect from 30-9-1990 and filed the suit on

( 2 ) THE defendant filed a written statement contending that the suit was filed only with a view to harass him and coerce him to increase the rent and the defendant is prepared to increase the rent reasonably as may be decided by the Court and there is no justification whatsoever for the plaintiff to demand delivery of possession. Subsequently the defendant sought leave to amend the written statement so as to incorporate a plea to the effect that the quit notice issued by the plaintiff is invalid and the suit is liable to be dismissed on that ground. As the trial Court dismissed the said application for amendment of the written statement, the defendant preferred a C. R. P. in this Court. In the course of hearing of the C. R. P. the learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff submitted that if such a plea with regard to the invalidity of the notice issued under Section 106 of the t. P. Act is raised even without a formal amendment of the written statement, the plaintiff would not raise any objection for advancing such argument. In view of the concession made by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff, the C. R. P. was dismissed holding that no formal amendment needs to be made to the written statement.

( 3 ) THE trial Court dismissed the suit holding that there was no valid quit notice as required under Section 106 of the T. P. Act. On appeal, the appellate Court took a different view that the quit notice is valid and accordingly decreed the suit.

( 4 ) THE only point, which, therefore, arises in this second appeal is whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for want of a valid quit notice as per Section 106 of the t. P. Act.

( 5 ) IT is not in dispute that the provisions of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and eviction) Control Act, 1960, are not applicable to the case since the monthly rent payable for the building exceeds rs. 1,000/ -. The contention of the appellant as regards the invalidity of the quit notice runs like this: under Ex. A-1 dated 1-7-1989 the tenancy period of 11 months commenced from 1-7-1989. Under Section 110 of the T. P. Act, in computing the said period of 11 months, the date of commencement of the tenancy i. e. , 1-7-1989 has to be excluded. The tenancy period, therefore, ended on 1-6-1990. By holding over, the tenancy continued from month to month from 2-6-1989 ending on the first date of the following month. However, the plaintiff, by issuing Ex. A-2 notice dated 20-7-1990, which was received by the defendant on 10-9-1999 purported to terminate the tenancy with effect from 30-9-1990 instead of 1-10-1990. As such the quit notice is not valid as it did not expire with the end of the month of the tenancy. The end of the month of the tenancy is on the first date of the following month and not on the last day of the previous month.

( 6 ) ON the other hand, it is the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-landlord that the tenancy expired by efflux of time on 31-5-1990 and there was no need to issue any quit notice under Section 106 of the T. P. Act. Only by way of abundant caution the plaintiff issued ex. A-2 Notice. Even otherwise the said notice is perfectly valid

Click Here to Read the rest of this document