A. SEETARAM REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE substantial question of law framed in this Second Appeal, is, the Courts below failed to note that the quit notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, (hereinafter called the Act) is not a valid notice in the eye of law as it was issued on 27-6-1979; whereas the tenancy starts from first of every month and in order to evict the appellant, the plaintiff- Devasthanam, should have issued 15 days clear days notice on the first of succeeding month and should have given 15 days time; in the absence of which, the quit notice itself is invalid and cannot be acted upon.

( 2 ) THE relevant facts may be noticed :- The respondent - Devasthanam, filed a suit for the recovery of possession of the suit premises (wherein appellant herein is running a Tea shop), arrears of rent and damages. Before filing the suit, a notice dated 27-6-1969 (Ex. A-1) under Section 106 of the Act, was issued which was suitably replied by the appellant s advocate on 7-7-1969. Thereafter the suit was laid. Both the Courts below held that the suit notice was valid and therefore the suit must be decreed. The decree was only confined to possession and not to arrears of r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document