Notice to quite treating tenancy as per English calendar held invalid.

Legal heirs of the defendant are the appellants before this Court.

2. The suit filed by the plaintiff was one for recovery of possession on termination of tenancy.

3. Material averments are as follows: Admittedly plaintiff is the owner of the building and the same was let out to the deceased defendant as per rent deed dated 14. 1969. The agreed rent was Rs.950 per mensem and the lease was for a term of three years. It is said that it is a composite lease and, therefore, the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act will not apply. It is further said that rent must be paid according to English calendar month. It is further averred in the plaint that the tenancy is as per English calendar month, and every month’s rent was agreed to be paid on or before the 10th of the succeeding month. Subsequently rent was increased to Rs. 1,000 and the deceased defendant was paying the rent, and the rent deed was kept intact. It is said that after the expiry of the term, the defendant (since deceased) was allowed to continue as tenant holding over on the same terms. Finally, they say that a quit notice was issued on 11. 1980, terminating the tenancy by the end of November, 1980, and the defendant was directed to handover possession by 1st December, 1980. Since the defendant failed to handover possession, suit was filed, for recovery of possession. After the death of the defendant, his legal representatives were impleaded, who are appellants before this Court in this second appeal.

4. In the written statement filed by the defendant, he contended that the suit is not maintainable, and he also said that he received a notice, for which he sent a reply also. In paragraph 14, he said that the notice issued by the landlord is not in accordance with law, and he ought to have been given a three year period to terminate the tenancy. After the death of the defendant, his legal representatives were impleaded, and they filed an additional written statement and it was also accepted.

.5. In the additional written-statement, they contended that the notice terminating the tenancy is not in accordance with Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. According to them as per the terms of the lease deed, the tenancy month is from 14. 1969 to 14. 1972. So, the tenancy commences on the 13th of every English month and ends with the 12th of the next English month. Hence, the notice to suit treating the tenancy as starting from the 1st date of English month is clearly invalid in law and there is no proper termination of tenancy. It is also said that since there is no valid termination, recovery cannot be had.

6. Both the courts below came to the conclusion that the notice issued is proper. Both the courts below were of the view that since the rent was being paid according to English calendar month, the termination notice is in tune with Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the appellants are bound to surrender the building. The concurrent decisions are now challenged in this second appeal.

.7. The following substantial question of law was raised for consideration at the time of admission of the second appeal:

."Whether the notice dated 11. 1980 is in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act?"

8. Ex.A-1 is the rental agreement dated 14. 1969. It is written in Tamil, and the document bears the date 29th Panguni, corresponding to 14. 1969. It says that the tenancy will commence from 14. 1969 and will expire on 14. 1972. The tenant has paid a sum of Rs. 10,000 as advance. It further provides that the rent has to be paid on or before the 10th of the succeeding month. Clause 5 of the agreement provides that if the rent is not paid by the end of the succeeding month, the tenant is liable to pay interest at 12% per annum on the arrears. From a reading of the entire deed, I do not find that there is any contract to the contrary incorporated in the deed. It is not disputed that after