Judges : KOSHI,M.S.MENON
Othamchand Sait - Appellant
Versus
Padmanabha Shenoi - Respondent
Case No : A. S. No. 103 of 1124 (C)
Decided On : 03/02/1954
Advocates Appeared :
N. Kumaran Achan; For Appellant V. Rama Shenoy; For Respondent
Notice - Termination of Tenancy - The court held that the notice provided by the plaintiff did not meet the legal requirement of fifteen days' notice expiring with the end of a month of the tenancy, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff appealed for recovery of possession of a property from the defendant, his lessee, due to improper notice of termination. The lower court ruled in favor of the defendant, stating that there was no proper notice of termination.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the notice provided by the plaintiff and concluded that it did not meet the legal requirement for termination of the tenancy, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.
Issues: The main issue was whether the notice provided by the plaintiff met the legal requirement for termination of the tenancy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the legal provision requiring fifteen days' notice expiring with the end of a month of the tenancy, which the plaintiff's notice did not fulfill.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and no order as to costs was made.
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 16 of 1121 of the District Court of Anjikaimal. He is the owner of an item of property in Mattancherry and the defendant is his lessee. The lower court has held that there has been no proper notice of termination and negatived the plaintiff's prayer for recovery of possession.
2. We propose to assume, without deciding, that the plaintiff is right when he says that the tenancy concerned is a tenancy from month to month commencing on the first of each month reckoned according to the English Calender. On that basis the notice required under S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is:
"Fifteen days' notice expiring with the end of a month of the tenancy".
and the only question for decision will be whether Ext. AG dated 15.8.1945 amounts to a proper notice of termination or not.
3. The relevant portion of Ext. AG reads as follows:
".......this is to give you notice that I terminate your tenancy with effect from the last day of August 1945. I hereby demand of you the surrender of the buildings and premises on the said date for which purpose I shall be present at the premises between 4 and 5 P.M. on 31.8.1945."
It is common ground that if Ext. AG amounts to a termination of the tenancy with effect from the midnight of the 31st August 1945 the notice is proper. The plaintiff's contention is that it is such a notice and the defendant's that it is not. The words "I terminate your tenancy with effect from the last day of August 1945" read with the concluding sentence of the notice "I hereby demand of you the surrender of the buildings and premises on the said date for which purpose I shall be present at the premises between 4 and 5 P.M." makes it quite clear that the termination intended was not at midnight on the 31st August 1945 but at least by 5 P.M. on the said date.
4. It follows that Ext. AG does not amount to fifteen days' notice "expiring with the end of a month of the tenancy- which for August 1945 will be at midnight on the 31st August 1945 - and that this appeal must fail. We dismiss the appeal but in the circumstances of the case, however, without any order as to costs.
Dismissed.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.