K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

The question that has come up for consideration in this case is whether failure to sign a registered notice intimating contravention of the conditions of lease 11(4)(i) of Act 2 of 1965 would render an application for eviction non maintainable.

2. Sec. 11(4) (i) of the Act enables the landlord to apply to Rent Control Court for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building if the tenant after commencement of Act 2 of 1965 without the consent of the landlord, transfers his right under the lease or sub-lets the entire building or any portion thereof if the lease does not confer on him any right to do so. The proviso to the said section obliges the landlord to send a registered notice to the tenant intimating the contravention of the condition of the lease if he seeks an order of eviction under Sec. 11(4)(i) and within thirty days of the receipt of notice of the contravention the tenant could terminate the transfer or sublease and defend a petition filed by the landlord under Sec. 11(4) (i). In the instant case the registered notice was sent by the landlord through his advocate, but the advocate failed to put his signature in the notice, consequently the tenant did not respond though received the notice.

3. Counsel for the tenant also submitted a registered notice signed by the landlord or his representative is a mandatory requirement and since the said requirement has not been satisfied there is no proper notice under the proviso to Sec. 11(4))(i) and therefore the petition filed under Sec. 11(4)(i) is not maintainable. Counsel appearing for the landlord Sri. P.C.Chacko submitted the statute contemplates only a registered notice and failure to sign would not render the notice defective. The landlord need only intimate the contravention through a registered notice and on receipt of that notice if the tenant fails to terminate the transfer or sublease the landlord will have a cause of action under Sec. 11(4) (i). Counsel submitted landlord had entrusted the matter to his lawyer who sent a notice in his letterhead, but advocate failed to sign the notice and therefore the landlord cannot be penalised.

4. The notice sent was a registered notice, the contravention of the conditions of lease has been specifically mentioned, and the only defect was that the lawyer failed to sign the notice. The word “notice” in its legal sense may be defined as information concerning a fact actually communicated to a party through an authorised person, which information is regarded as equivalent to knowledge of its legal consequence. As per statute if the tenant sublets the premises without the consent of the landlord it is objectionable, so also if the tenant transfers his rights under the lease to any other person is also objectionable. The purpose and object of the proviso is only an intimation to the tenant of the contravention of the conditions of the lease. Tenant has been alerted of the contravention. In order to avoid an order of eviction it is necessary to terminate the transfer or sublease within thirty days of the receipt of the notice or refusal thereof. A learned Judge of this Court had occasion to consider the issue in Abdurehim Sait v. Sahul Hameed, 1981 KLT 289 and in Rakesh Kumar and another v. Hindustan Everest Tool Ltd., (1988) 2 SCC 165. In view of the above mentioned reasons we are inclined to hold that though an advocate has failed to sign in the lawyer notice sent under the proviso to section 11(4) (i) since no prejudice has been caused to the tenant, the notice is a proper notice. Hence the petition under Sec. 11(4)(i) is maintainable.

5. The building was rented out to the original tenant vide Ext.A1 lease deed dated 14-1-1968 on a monthly rent of Rs.30/- which was enhanced to Rs.60/-. Tenant was conducting radio repair work under the name and style “O.K. Radio Repairing Institute.” But in violation of the terms of rent deed and without the consent of the landlord th