Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : S.R.NAYAK
BHAGYANAGAR KHADI SAMITHI, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, HYDERABAD (DEFENDANT) - Appellant
Versus
S.B.Chitnis (Died) - Respondent
Decided On : 08-28-98
Held : a liberal construction is put upon a notice to quit in order that it should not be defeated by inaccuracies either in the description of the premises or name of the tenant or the date of the expiry of the notice; and that the test of its sufficiency is not what its contents would mean to a stranger ignorant of all the facts and circumstances touching the premises to which the notice purports to refer, but what they would mean to tenants presumably conversant with all those facts and circumstances and mistakes, if any, should not be construed with desire to find faults, but they should be construed liberally. A notice to quit must be construed broadly not with a desire to find faults with it which would render it defective, but it must be construed utres magis valeat quam pereat. From the language used in the quit notice, it must be endeavoured to ascertain the intention of the parties and the effect thereof. It should be conjointly read not with an intention to split up a straw or in a hypercritical manner or by pedagogic pedanticism or over refined subtlety but it must be construed in a common sense way. A notice must be read in the context of the facts of each particular case having regard to the situation of the parties to whom it is addressed.
( 1 ) C. C. C. A. NO. 77 of 1997 is the first appeal filed by the defendant under section 96, CPC and it is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21-2-1997 passed in the suit O. S. No. 1227 of 1986 on the file of the 6th Additional judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad, decreeing the suit. Cross Objection in C. C. C. A. No. 77 of 1997 filed by the plaintiffs directs against the same judgment and decree as regards the rejection of the claim of the plaintiffs for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards the compensatory mesne profits for the month of September, 1986 and the future compensatory mesne profits at the rate of rs. 5,000/- per month. The parties are referred to in this judgment as they are arrayed in the suit Originally the deceased - plaintiff No. 1 viz. , S. B. Chitnis filed the suit for evicting the defendant from the suit schedule property i. e. , pacca built double-storeied buildings with mulgies bearing Municipal no. 4-4-266 along with the portion of godown in underground consisting of two halls and three rooms on the northern side situated opposite to Residency main Gate, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad. During the pendency of the suit S. B. Chitnis died. Plaintiffs 2 to 5 were added as legal representatives as per the orders of the Court below dated 9-8-1995 passed in LA. No. 379 of 1995.
( 2 ) THE plaint averments be summarised briefly as under : the suit property was originally owned by one late Ramji Patangay and he died on 15-3-1956 and his wife late Smt. Lakshmi Bai Ramji Patangay succeeded to the suit property. Smt. Lakshmi Bai Ramji Patangay executed a lease deed dated 27-9-1956 (Ex. A-l) in favour of the defendant leasing out the suit schedule property for a period of five years commencing from 1-6-1956 on a monthly rent of Rs. 1050/- and that period of lease expired on 1-6-1961. Again on 13-2-1980, Smt. Lakshmi Bai Ramji Patangay executed another registered lease deed (Ex. A-2) in favour of the defendant commencing from 1-8-1978 for a period of five years only, on a monthly rent of rs. 3,000/ -. The said period of lease expired on 31-7-1983. Inspite of the expiry of the lease dated 13-2-1980, the defendant is continuing in the possession of the suit property as a tenant holding over. Smt. Lakshmi Bai Ramji Patangay died on 15-4-1984 leaving behind her foster daughter, Smt. Sharada Bai (plaintiff No. 2) who is no other than Smt. Lakshmi Bai Ramji Patangay s husband s brother s daughter. Smt. Laxmi Bai Ramji Patangay has executed a Will Deed dated 28-6-1970 (Ex. A-4) under which she has bequeathed suit property in favour of her foster daughter (plaintiff No. 2) and three sons of her foster daughter (plaintiff Nos. 3 to 5) and appointed two executors, viz. , her Advocate one late Sri Narasimha Aiyangar and S. B. Chitnis (the original plaintiff ). Sri Narasimha Aiyangar passed away after few years during the life time of Smt. Lakshmi Bai Ramji Patangay. After the death of Smt. Lakshmi bai Ramji Patangay, S. B. Chitnis got the registered Will Deed dated 28-6-1970 probated vide Certificate of Probate dated 11-4-1985 in O. P. No. 179 of 1984 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. S. B. Chitnis made repeated requests to the defendant to vacate the suit property as the same is required for personal occupation and business of the beneficiaries under the Will. Although the defendant promised to vacate, it did not vacate. On 3-8-1996 (sic. 1986) S. B. Chitnis got issued a legal notice under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy of the defendant. The defendant having received the said notice got issued a reply notice dated 2-10-1986 through his Advocate claiming life long tenancy under the registered lease deed dated 13-2-1980. The claim of the defendant is untenable and the suit premises was never leased to the defendant for life. The defendant is liable to pay compensatory mesne profits for the month of september, 1986 at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- and futu
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
