MODI, J.—This is a landlords second appeal in a suit for eviction, which was dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge Ajmer in disagreement with the trial court which had decreed the suit.

2. The only question which arises for determination in this appeal is whether the notice of ejectment given by the landlords to the respondent tenant was good in law. It is necessary to state just a few facts in order to appreciate this controversy. It is admitted that the rent-note which was the basis of the suit, Ex. 3, (or Ex. 4-6) was dated the 8th August, 1952. It is further admitted that the tenancy commenced from the 1st August, I952. The appellants landlords gave a notice of ejectment Ex. 4 on the 27th June, 1954. whereby they asked the respondent to "vacate the premises by midnight of 31st July 1954/1st August 1954-when the months tenancy would terminate". The respondent gave a reply to the aforesaid notice, Ex. A-2, on the 10th July, 1954, wherein it may be incidentally stated, no question as to the invalidity of the notice was raised. Eventually, the landlords filed a suit, out of which the present appeal arises, on the 3rd August, 1954, in the court of the Sub Judge, First Class, Ajmer. The trial court held that the notice of ejectment was good inasmuch as the landlords had mentioned both days namely the 31st July and 1st August 1954 in their notice as being the point of time when the next following months tenancy was to terminate. On appeal, the learned Senior Civil Judge put a narrower meaning on the notice holding that what was really meant by the expression "mid-night of 31st July 1954/ist August 1954 was that according to the landlords, the tenancy was to terminate on the mid-night between the 31st July and 1st August, 1954. In that view of the matter, the learned Judge concluded, reading the notice in the light of the proviso contained in sec. no of the Transfer of Property Act, that the landlords had virtually asked the tenant to vacate the permises twenty-four hours before the actual termination of the tenancy and dismissed the suit on the ground of invalidity of the notice. The present appeal has been filed by the landlords, from that judgment and decree.

3. The only question, as already stated which in these circumstances arises is as to whether the notice of ejectment Ex. 4 was a good notice in law or, putting it in somewhat different language, the question is which of the two interpretations put on the notice by the two courts below is correct.

4. Having heard learned counsel at length and having given my best consideration to the arguments pro and con, I am disposed to agree with the conclusion at which the trial Court arrived. It seems to me well established that where a notice of ejectment can be read in more ways than one, then the proper way to interpret it is to preserve its validity rather than to destroy it. Thus it was held in Utility Articles Manufacturing Company Vs. Raja Bahadur Motilal Bombay Mills Ltd.(1) that a notice to quit, though not strictly accurate or consistent in the statements embodied in it, may still be good and effective in law. The test of its sufficiency is not what it would mean to a stranger ignorant of all the facts and circumstances touching the holding to which it purports to refer, but what it would mean to tenants presumably conversant with all those facts and circumstances. It was further laid down that the notice should be construed not with a desire to find faults in it which would render it defective but should be construed ut res magis valeat quam pereat. Reference was made in arriving at this conclusion on a judgment of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Harihar Banerji Vs. Ramashashi Roy (2). In this case, the same principle was laid down although it was held that the said principle would not apply to inaccuracies deliberately inserted for fraudulent purposes. It is nobodys case, however, that the present is a case of that exceptional character.

5. This being the correct

Click Here to Read the rest of this document