The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a valid termination of tenancy under Sec.106 of the Transfer of Property Act, emphasizing the liberal construction of the quit notice to ensure practical justice.

Against the judgment in A.S.No.21/1996 on the file of the Sub Court, Koyilandy which was filed against the judgment and decree in O.S.No. 46/1994 of the Munsiff Court, Perambra, the plaintiffs filed this appeal. The suit is filed for recovery of possession on the strength of title. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaint schedule shop room originally belonged to plaintiffs’ father Kunhiraman Adiyodi. He died in the Year 1992. On his death, his right in the property devolved upon the plaintiffs as his legal representatives. The property was given on rent by the father of the plaintiffs to the defendant in the year 1989 on a monthly rent of Rs.125/-. The defendant paid rent only upto the month of September 1992. Subsequently the defendant did not pay the rent. The plaintiffs have sent a notice to the defendant terminating the lease and asking the defendant to give vacant possession of the shop room to the plaintiffs. The defendant sent a reply through a lawyer raising false and frivolous contentions. So the suit is for eviction of the defendant from the plaint schedule shop room and also for recovery of arrears of rent.

2. The defendant filed a written statement contending that the tenancy was not legally terminated. Notice sent by the plaintiffs is not proper and valid. The allegation that the building was taken on rent in 1989 for a monthly rent of Rs.125/- is not correct. The defendant obtained the shop room on lease in 1981 on a monthly rent of Rs.60/-. The shop room was repaired in 1989. For doing the repair work, the plaintiffs father had accepted a sum of Rs.10,000/- from the defendant. At the time of paying the amount of Rs.10,000/-, the agreement was that the defendant can set off the amount against future rent till the entire amount paid is wiped off. The defendant has also spent a sum of Rs.3,000/- for electrifying the building. So the plaintiffs are not entitled to get arrears of rent as claimed in the suit. The suit is liable to be dismissed.

3. Based on the pleadings, the trial court framed six issues. On the side of the plaintiffs, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and EXTs.A1 and A2 were marked. On the side of the defendants, DWs. 1 and 2 were examined. The court below after trial decreed the suit, against which the defendant filed the appeal. The first appellate court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and allowed the appeal. Against the said judgment and decree, this appeal is filed.

4. The question to be considered is whether the tenancy was legally terminated as contemplated under Sec.106 of the Transfer of Property Act and whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get eviction of the shop room. Even though the plaintiffs claimed rent at the rate of Rs.125/- per month, the court below found that the monthly rent was Rs.60/ and the trial court found that the rent is in arrears from October 1992 onwards. That finding in the trial court is now become final. So the only question left is regarding the legality of notice. Ext.A1 is the copy of the notice sent on behalf of the plaintiffs terminating the tenancy. The contention of the defendant is that as per Sec.106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the tenancy is to be terminated at the end of the tenancy month. As per Sec.106 of Transfer of Property Act, in the absence of a contract or local law or usage to the contrary, a lease of immovable property for agricultural or manufacturing purpose shall be deemed to be a lease from year to year, terminable, on the part of either lessor or lessee, by six months notice expiring with the end of a year of the tenancy; and a lease of immovable property for any other purpose shall be deemed to be a lease from month to month, terminable, on the part of either lessor or lessee, by fifteen days’ notice expiring with the end of a month of the tenancy. So according to the defendant, the lease was not terminated as contemplated under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. In the notice what is state