A notice to quit must be construed in a common sense way and not with a desire to find faults in it. The validity of a notice to quit ought not to turn on the splitting of a straw and it must not be read in a hypercritical manner.

1. The above Second Appeal has been filed by the defendant in O.S.No.383 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif s Court, Nagapattinam. Defendant -Appellant died during the pendency of the appeal and his legal representative have been brought on record to prosecute the appeal. Respondents filed the suit for recovery of possession of the suit property after removing the superstructure put up on the land and for recovery of the rental arrears of a sum of Rs.360 for 18 months from 12. 1980 to 18. 1981.

2. The case of the plaintiffs before the trial Court was that the property belonged to them, that as per the agreement dated 112. 1968, the defendant became a tenant and he put up a hut with his expenses on the undertaking to pay Rs.20 per month towards rent on the first of every English Calendar month, that he failed to pay the rent as undertaken from 12. 1980 onwards, that the property is also required for the use of the plaintiffs, that the defendant has also encroached upon other portions of the property and that a notice dated 17. 1981 has been issued calling upon the defendant to deliver vacant possession of the property.

3. The defendant filed a written statement in which though there is no dispute about the title or ownership of the property of the plaintiffs, it was contended that there are two huts, in one of which the son of the defendant by name Nagappan is living and he should have been a necessary and property party to the suit, that an extent larger than the one specified in the agreement was also in the possession of the defendant, that the notice calling upon the defendant to hand over possession on 18. 1981 is illegal and that if the plaintiffs prove that Amalorpavam is the duly constituted agent of the plaintiffs, the defendant is always ready to pay the rental arrears. On the above claims, the defendant prayed that the suit had to be dismissed.

4. The suit has been tried and during trial both parties adduced oral and documentary evidence. The learned trial Judge by his Judgment and decree dated 24. 1983 decreed the suit for recovery of vacant site of an extent of 40 feet north-south and 25 feet east-west, after removing the superstructure at the expenses of the defendant. The claim for recovery of rent for 18 months in a sum of Rs.360 was also allowed and in respect of further mesne profits, the parties have been relegated to proceedings under Order 20, Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Aggrieved, the defendant filed A.S.No.18 of 1983 before Sub-Court, Nagapattinam. The learned first appellate Judge also concurred with the findings and conclusions recorded by the learned trial Judge and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the above Second Appeal.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants, while elaborating the substantial questions of law formulated at the time of admission of the Second Appeal, contended that the plaintiffs cannot split up the tenancy and seek recovery of possession of a lesser extent, when admittedly the defendant is in possession of a larger extent and that the Courts below committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the tenancy has been validly terminated under the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance upon the decisions in D.G. Mehta v. B.D. Chudasaka, AIR 1956 Bom. 113, Pardati v. Manasi Devi, AIR 1977 Ori. 139 and Datt Chpant v. Vithalrao, AIR 1975 SC 1111 in support of the submissions as above. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents adopted the reasons assigned by the Courts below and contended that the conclusions arrived at by the Courts below concurrently are in accordance with law and do not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference-by this Court. To justify his claim that the notice of termination of tenancy was in accordance with law and that the Courts below were right in coming to such conclusion, reliance has been placed by the learned counsel on the