Tenant not given even one month time to quit.

This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree rendered in A.S.No.131 of 1989, which in turn arose out of the judgment and decree rendered in O.S.No.262 of 1988. The defendant is the appellant herein. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.262 of 1988 for eviction and for collection of arrears of rent. The defendant is a tenant under the plaintiff in respect of the suit property on a monthly rent of Rs.200 payable on or before 5th day of every English calendar month. According to the plaintiff the defendant committed default in payment of rent for a period of five months from 5. 1988 amounting to Rs.1,000. The plaintiff sent a notice dated 28. 1988 to the defendant calling upon the defendant to quit and deliver vacant possession on or before 30.9.1988. The tenancy was also terminated from 30.9.1988. The defendant received the notice sent by the plaintiff on 9. 1988. However, the defendant did not send any reply for this notice. Hence, the plaintiff came forward with this present suit for eviction.

2. The defendant in his written statement submitted that the consent letter from this defendant was obtained under duress, with the help of Vilathikulam Sub Inspector of Police. The notice issued by the plaintiff dated 28. ‘8S is not valid. The notice is not in accordance with the provisions of S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The defendant paid an advance of Rs.1,000 to the plaintiff at the time of inception of the tenancy. The plaintiff unreasonably refused to renew the lease agreement. The defendant is paying the rent regularly. The plaintiff has no right to terminate the tenancy. Since the plaintiff forcibly attempting to evict the tenant, the defendant filed another suit O.S.No.194 of 1988 against the plaintiff in O.S.No.262 of 1988 for a permanent injunction restraining him from evicting the tenant unreasonably. It was, therefore, pleaded that the suit for eviction filed by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.

3. Both the suits were taken up together and a common judgment was rendered. Considering the facts arising in these cases, the trial court dismissed O.S.No. 194 of 1988 filed by the tenant and decreed the suit O.S.No.262 of 1988 filed by the landlord. On appeal, the first appellate court confirmed the common judgment and decree rendered by the trial court in both the suits. As against the judgment and decree rendered in A.S.No.131 of 1989, which in turn arose out of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.262 of 1988, the tenant/defendant is in appeal before this Court. When this matter came up for admission, notice of motion was ordered by this Court. The respondent entered appearance through his counsel and contested the matter.

.4. The learned counsel appearing for the defendant/appellant submitted as under: Both the courts below failed to note that the tenancy commenced on 20th of every English calendar month and ended on the 19th of the succeeding calendar month. The tenancy agreement is available with the respondent landlord. The respondent refused to produce the same in court. If the tenancy agreement is produced, that would show that the date of commencement of the tenancy is 20th of every English calendar month. Since the respondent herein refused to produce the said tenancy agreement, this Court should draw every adverse inference against the respondent herein for non production of the lease agreement. The suit notice issued by the respondent herein terminating the tenancy is not in accordance with Sec.106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, the said notice is not valid in law. The lease deed even though an unregistered one, it can be used for proving collateral matters. It is not correct to state that the tenancy commenced on the 1st of every English calendar month, and ending with the end of every English calendar month. It was therefore pleaded that the suit is liable to be dismissed for want of proper notice to suit.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the r