Bapna, J.—This is a second appeal by the contesting defendant in a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent.

2. Respondents Nos. 1 and 3 in the court of Munsif, Jaipur City West, on 3rd February, 1947, on the allegations that the defendants were their tenants under a rent-note dated 21st August, 1944, on a monthly rent of Rs, 13/-. It was alleged that under the terms of the said agreement the defendants had agreed to vacate the premises within one month of their being called upon to do so. The plaintiffs case was that the defendants had failed to pay the rent for a year and three months and to vacate inspite of a notice having been served upon them. It was mentioned that a proper certificate from the Rent Controller for institution of the suit had been obtained on 7th September, 1946. The plaintiffs claimed Rs. 195/- as arrears of rent and annas -/4/-as cost of notice, and prayed for ejectment.

3. The defendant pleaded that the notice for termination of the tenancy was invalid. It was urged thai he had been ready and willing to pay the rent, and was,, therefore, not liable to ejectment, more so, as the certificate by the Rent Controller for institution of the suit was also invalid.

4. The trial Court, after evidence, gave a decree for ejectment and arrears of rent claimed by the plaintiffs, but did not allow costs on the finding that the defendants had been ready and willing to pay the rent, but the plaintiffs had not accepted the same.

5. On appeal, the learned District Judge maintained the decree, but allowed costs to the plaintiffs on the arrears of rent as well.

6. On second appeal three issues were framed and remitted to the Munsiff for a finding. They are as follows:—

(1) Whether notice Ex. A-1 was signed by Bhanwarlal ?

(2) Whether Bhanwarlal was the agent of the plaintiffs having an authority to issue a notice to the defendants under sec. 109 of the Transfer of Property Act ?

(3) Whether the notice Ex. A-1 is in accordance with law so as to have the effect of terminating the tenancy ?

7. The learned Munsif found on all the issues in favour of the plaintiffs, and sent the record with his opinion.

8. The case has been referred to a Division Bench, as there was conflict of opinion on the question whether a notice of a particular period stipulated in the agreement should expire with the expiration of the month of the tenancy.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the terms of the lease provided for a notice of one month, but did not mention specifically that it could be given on any date in the month. It 3was urged that the provision for one months notice only modified the period of notice mentioned in sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, but the other condition that the notice should expire with the termination of the month of tenancy mentioned in the section was still applicable, and, therefore, the notice in the present case, which expired on a date other than the expiry of the month of the tenancy was not valid. Reliance was placed on Svt. Sailabala Dassea vs. A.H. Tappassier(l), Banchhanidhi Samant Rai vs. Lachminarain Agarwala(2), Mukan Chand vs. Gulabchand(3) Binoy Krishna Das vs. Salsiccioni(4) and Sunderji Ratanshi vs. Gangubai Jeshinghbhai(5).

10. It was held in Svt. Sailbala Dassee vs. H. A. Tappassier(i) that when a tenant continued to occupy the property after the expiry of the period of lease, sec. 116 of the Transfer of Property Act came into play, and the lease, in the absence of a contract or local law or usage to the contrary, was renewed from year to year or month to month according to the purpose for which the property was leased, as specified in sec. 116 of the Transfer of Property Act.

11. It was contended on the basis of the above authority that in the present case also the original lease only for a year and as the defendant continued to occupy the premises after the expiry of the year, he became only a tenant from month to month and as there was no other contract, the notice should hav

Click Here to Read the rest of this document