SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1989 Supreme(AP) 525

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.LAKSHMANA RAO
Saladi Srirama Murthy - Appellant
Versus
Kavali Swaminaidu - Respondent
Decided On : 11-24-89

A notice to quit issued by a lessor to a lessee determining a lease from month to month is valid under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act if it is sent by registered post to the lessee's correct address and the lessee avoids to take delivery of the notice.

Headnote:

LEASE - NOTICE TO QUIT - VALIDITY - LEASE FROM MONTH TO MONTH - NOTICE ISSUED BY LESSOR TO LESSEE DETERMINING THE LEASE - VALIDITY UNDER SECTION 106 OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff leased out the plaint schedule land to the defendant for five years. After the expiry of the lease period, the defendant continued in possession as a tenant holding over. Plaintiff issued a registered notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act calling upon the defendant to pay the arrears of rent and hand over vacant possession of the plaint schedule land. The defendant avoided to take delivery of the notice. The trial court held that the notice was valid and the defendant was liable to pay the arrears of rent. The lower appellate court held that the notice was not valid since the tenancy was from year to year and six months' notice as required under Section 106 was not given.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the lease was from month to month terminable by 15 days' notice. The notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendant was in accordance with the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The defendant was liable to pay the arrears of rent as determined by the lower appellate court.

Issues: 1. Whether the lease was from month to month or from year to year? 2. Whether the notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendant was valid under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The lease was from month to month terminable by 15 days' notice as per the terms of the lease deed and the conduct of the parties. 2. The notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendant was valid under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The notice was sent by registered post to the defendant's correct address. The defendant avoided to take delivery of the notice. The postman's endorsement on the letter that the defendant was avoiding to take delivery was sufficient to prove service of the notice.

Final Decision: The Second Appeal was allowed. The judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court except to the extent relating to payment of rent were set aside. The suit was decreed. There was no order as to costs.

LAKSHMANA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS Second Appeal preferred by the plaintiff arises out of O. S. No. 526 of 1972 on the file of the II Addl. District Munsif, Narsapur. That suit was filed against Kavali Adnarayana, the predecessor in interest of the respondents herein for possession of the plaint schedule property and for recovery of rent.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff leased out the plaint schedule land in favour of the defendant kavali Adinarayana under Ex. A-1 lease deed dt. October 4,1955 for a period of five years from September 21,1955 to September 20,1960 on a monthly rent of rs. 8-54 as payable by the2istdayof every month. It is an admitted fact that after the expiry of the said period of five years, no further lease deed was executed and the defendant continued in possession.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff got issued Ex. A-4 registered notice February 20,1972 to the defendant under Section 106 Transfer of Property Act calling upon him to pay the arrears of rent and hand over vacant possession of the plaint schedule land by March 22,1972. That registered notice was returned with a postal endorsement that the defendant avoided to take delivery of the same. As the defendant avoided to take delivery of the same and as the defendant failed to pay the arrears of the rent and deliver vacant possession of the site, the plaintiff filed the suit. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court held that ex. A-4 notice was valid and the defendant was liable to pay the. arrears of rent of Rs. 175/- for the period from June 21,1969 to February 24,1971. The suit was accordingly decreed directing the defendant to remove the shed in the plaint schedule property and deliver vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff within twelve months from the date of that Judgment.

( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the judgment, the legal representatives of the defendant filed A. S. No. 116 of 1977 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Narasapur. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the defendant continued in possession of the suit site as a tenant holding over, after the period of lease had expired. However, the learned Judge held that Ex. A-4 notice issued under Section 106 transfer of Property Act was not valid since the tenancy was from year to year and six months notice as required under Section 106 was not given. Regarding the payment of rent, it was held that the defendant was liable to pay an amount of Rs. 158-33 ps. as damages for occupation of the suit site by him. Consequently, the suit was partly decreed only to the extent of payment of arrears of rent.

( 5 ) QUESTIONING the validity of the judgment, this Second Appeal was preferred. This Court called for a finding from the Lower Appellate Court on the following point. "if the lease is from month to month, whether the notice issued by the lessor to the lessee determining the lease is valid under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. "

( 6 ) THE Lower Appellate Court recorded a finding and transmitted it to this court. It was held that there was no valid service of notice on the defendant. However, the learned Judge held that if the postal endorsement on Ex. A-4 that the defendant avoided service of notice was considered as amounting to service of notice, then Ex. A-4 notice was in accordance with the provisions of Section 106, Transfer of Property Act.

( 7 ) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Lower appellate Court had committed a grave error in holding that the lease was for manufacturing purpose, and therefore, it was a lease from year to year terminable by six months notice. In Ex. A-1 lease deed, it was specifically mentioned that the lessee was entitled to use the land and the shed erected therein for the purpose of keeping the car and other things belonging to him. There is no indication in Ex. A-1 that the suit site was leased out for any manufacturing purpose. As per the terms of the lease deed, rent is payable by 21st of every month. After the expiry of the le











Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top