Back
1934 Supreme(Cal) 304
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Buckland, J.
Susil Chunder Neogy & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Birendrajit Shah - Respondent
Decided On : 22-02-1934
The expiration of tenancy and holding over as monthly tenants impact the validity of the notice to quit.
Headnote:
Notice to Quit - Ejectment - The court discussed the validity of a notice to quit and the implications of holding over as monthly tenants. The decision highlighted the expiration of tenancy and the impact on the validity of the notice to quit, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the suit.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff gave notice to the defendant to quit the premises by a certain date. The premises had been let to the defendant for a term of three years, and the defendants held over as monthly tenants.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the suit with costs, emphasizing the expiration of tenancy, the implications of holding over as monthly tenants, and the validity of the notice to quit.
Issues: Validity of notice to quit, holding over as monthly tenants, impact of expiration of tenancy on the notice to quit.
Ratio Decidendi: The expiration of tenancy and holding over as monthly tenants impact the validity of the notice to quit. A notice to quit expiring with the last day of a month is considered a bad notice.
Final Decision: The suit was dismissed with costs.
JUDGMENT
Buckland, J. - This is a suit for ejectment. On 24th September 1932 plaintiff gave notice in writing to the defendant to quit and vacate the premises in, suit by 31st October 1932. The premises had been let to the defendant for a term of three years from 1st April 1918. According to the decision of the Judicial Committee in Benoy Krishna Das v. Salsiccioni 1932 PC 279 the tenancy expired at midnight on 1st April 1921. The defendants held over as monthly tenants. Holding over as monthly tenants each month of their tenancy expired at midnight on the 1st of the succeeding month. Consequently a notice to quit expiring with the last day of a month is a bad notice. In these circumstances there is no necessity to consider the form of the notice or the other defence taken whether payment under the order of 6th December last of Rs. 330-8-3 month by month amounted to a waiver. But, quite shortly, though without deciding the case on those grounds, I should say that the notice to quit was good according to the decisions in Doe v. Culliford 4 D& R 248 and Wride v. Dyer (1900) 1 QB 23 and that the plaintiff cannot be prejudiced by payments made under an order made by consent as though they were payments of rent out of Court. I cannot conceive that it was ever intended thereby in effect to nullify the whole of the plaintiff's proceedings. But for reasons already stated the suit will be dismissed with costs.
