Common legal questions arise in both these appeals. Hence they are disposed by this unified judgment. In these appeals by two building tenants against a common landlord (a Church), the dispute is centered around the landlord's entitlement to claim eviction of the buildings on a challenged termination of tenancy. Hereinafter, the parties are referred to as the plaintiffs and defendants, as shown in the trial court proceedings. There are certain admitted basic facts. The defendants in the suits are the tenants under the plaintiffs. They occupy separate rooms in a building owned by the first plaintiff - a Church. Although there was a feeble attempt by the plaintiffs to contend at an earlier point of time that the defendants are not tenants, but only licensees, that contention was given up at the trial stage itself. In this Court also, it is admitted that the jural relationship between the defendants and plaintiffs is a landlord-tenant relationship.

2. Yet another fact that the building owned by the plaintiffs is one exempted from the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, although disputed by the tenants at the initial stage, is practically admitted before the courts below and this Court. What is remaining, as a bone of contention, is the entitlement of the plaintiffs to seek eviction of the defendants from the tenanted premises on the basis of the legal steps taken to terminate the tenancy.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the defendants and the plaintiffs.

4. Averments in the plaint show that the first plaintiff Church is the owner of the building described in the schedules to the plaints. The plaintiffs have made non committal statements in the plaints that the defendants are occupying the building as per two separate, but identical, agreements styled as leave and licence deed (Ext.A4 in both cases). In both the appeals, it is the contention of the plaintiffs that as per separate registered notices, the tenancies in favour of the defendants had been terminated. Exts.A5 and A8 are the statutory notices marked in both the cases. It is a common feature in both cases that Ext.A5 notice dated 03.03.2010 suffered from material defects. There was a typographical error regarding the date of termination of tenancy. Instead of terminating the tenancy on 01.07.2010, it was typewritten as 01.06.2010. Hence Ext.A8 registered notice was caused to be issued said to be in continuation of Ext.A5 for correcting the mistake. The plaintiffs contended that the tenancies remained terminated on account of these notices and the defendants are tenants at sufferance thereafter. Hence, they are liable to be evicted through a process of law.

5. The contentions in the written statement in both these cases are almost identical. Even though an attempt was made by the defendants to dispute the title of the plaintiffs, the courts below repelled those contentions finding that the tenants are estopped from denying title of the landlord. This finding is legally sound because the admitted jural relationship between the parties is a landlord and tenant relationship. Defendants attacked the legality and sustainability of notices issued by the plaintiffs for the termination of tenancies. The defendants contended that going by the agreed terms and conditions in Ext.A4 leave and licence deeds, the notices are insufficient and they are incompetent to terminate the leases. Hence, the plaintiffs are not entitled to get any relief as claimed in the plaints.

6. The substantial questions of law framed, after perusing the records and hearing the learned counsel, are as mentioned hereunder:

(i) When a clause exists in the lease agreement requiring one month's notice for termination of the lease, whether the courts below are correct in holding that Exts.A5 and A8 notices, admittedly covering a lesser period, have terminated the leases?

(ii) Whether the terms and conditions in Ext.A4 leave and licence deed are “contract to the contrary” as speci