Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
V. Bhargava and M. L. Chaturvedi, JJ.
RAM CHANDRA - Appellant
Versus
LALA DULICHAND - Respondents
First Appeal 358 Of 1948
Decided On : 11/18/1957
LANDLORD AND TENANT - EJECTMENT - NOTICE TO QUIT - VALIDITY - PERIOD FIXED BY NOTICE - EXPIRY WITH END OF MONTH OF TENANCY - TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, S. 106.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff-appellant, the owner of a cinema building known as Ram Hall, filed a suit for ejectment of the defendant-respondent, who was a tenant of the building. The plaintiff claimed that the tenancy had been terminated by a notice dated 9-4-1946, calling upon the defendant to vacate the building after 10-5-1946, and by a subsequent notice dated 13-9-1947, calling upon the defendant to vacate the building by 10-10-1947. The lower court dismissed the suit, holding that the first notice was not valid and that the second notice did not terminate the tenancy in accordance with the requirements of the Transfer of Property Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the first notice was not a valid notice to determine the tenancy, as it did not convey the intention of the landlord to terminate the tenancy by 10-5-1946. However, the court held that the second notice was a valid notice to quit, as it satisfied the requirements of both Sections 106 and 111 of the Transfer of Property Act. The court further held that the period fixed by the notice, "by 10-10-1947", was a period expiring with the end of the month of tenancy, as the month of tenancy expired on the 9th of every month according to the English calendar.
Issues: 1. Whether the first notice dated 9-4-1946 was a valid notice to determine the tenancy? 2. Whether the second notice dated 13-9-1947 was a valid notice to quit? 3. Whether the period fixed by the second notice, "by 10-10-1947", was a period expiring with the end of the month of tenancy?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the first notice dated 9-4-1946 was not a valid notice to determine the tenancy, as it did not convey the intention of the landlord to terminate the tenancy by 10-5-1946. The court relied on the fact that the notice was given in the context of a previous notice dated 9-4-1946, which had already terminated the tenancy, and that the second notice did not contain any language indicating that the landlord intended to terminate the tenancy by 10-10-1947. 2. The court held that the second notice dated 13-9-1947 was a valid notice to quit, as it satisfied the requirements of both Sections 106 and 111 of the Transfer of Property Act. The court held that a lease governed by Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act can be determined by a notice to quit, and that the notice in question was a notice to quit, as it required the respondent to vacate the property. 3. The court held that the period fixed by the second notice, "by 10-10-1947", was a period expiring with the end of the month of tenancy, as the month of tenancy expired on the 9th of every month according to the English calendar. The court relied on the fact that the notice called upon the respondent to vacate the premises immediately after the midnight of 9-10-1947, and that a reasonable period had to be given for the respondent to vacate the premises.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit for ejectment. The court granted the respondent six months time to vacate the building, during which time the respondent was to deposit in Court or pay to the appellant compensation at the rate of Rs. 750/- per month.
( 1 ) THIS is a plaintiffs first appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment of the defendant, who was a tenant of the plaintiff-appellant, of a cinema building known as Ram Hall in Kanpur. The plaintiff also sued for arrears of rent and for mesne profits for the period during which, according to the plaintiff, the defendant continued in possession after the tenancy had come to an end. According to the plaintiff, the tenancy was terminated by a notice dated 9-4-1946 calling upon the defendant to vacate the building in suit after 10-5-1946 after 12 Oclock in the night. The plaintiff also gave another subsequent notice dated 13-9-1947, in which he called upon the defendant to vacate Ram Hall by 10-10-1947 and deliver the possession of it to the plaintiff. Though the claim, as framed, based the case on ejectment on the earlier notice dated 9-4-1946, it appears that the subsequent notice dated 13-9-1947 was also mentioned in the plaint and during the trial of the suit reliance was placed on this subsequent notice also as having the effect of determining the lease in favour of the defendant. Before the suit was instituted the plaintiff had obtained permission of the District Magistrate for instituting the suit to eject the defendant under section 3 of the U. P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Ordinance, which was subsequently replaced by the U. P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act, The suit was instituted on 5-11-1947, on which date the U. P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act had already been promulgated and had come into force.
( 2 ) THE lower court dismissed the suit for ejectment on two grounds. One ground was that the mere permission under Section 3 of the U. P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act granted by the district Magistrate did not empower the plaintiff to bring the suit for ejectment, unless he could also show the existence of one or more of the other grounds mentioned in Clauses (a) to (f) of section 3 of that Act. The second ground on which the suit was dismissed was that neither of the notices relied upon by the plaintiff for termination of the tenancy was a valid notice, so that there had been no termination of the tenancy in accordance with the requirements of the Transfer of property Act, in the light of these findings the suit for ejectment was dismissed. The suit for mesne profits also consequently failed. The court granted a decree for arrears of rent upto 9-10-1947 only. No decree for arrears of rent for the period after 9-10-1947 and upto the date of the suit could be granted on the findings given by the lower court as according to the lower court the tenancy was still continuing, which was a month to month tenancy and a full period of month not having expired during this period, no decree for arrears of rent for this fraction of the month could be granted. In this appeal it has been urged on behalf of the appellant that the lower court was wrong in dismissing the suit for ejectment, as the permission granted by the District Magistrate under section 3 of the U. P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act was sufficient by itself to make the suit maintainable even without the existence of any of the other grounds mentioned in Clauses (a) to (f) of Section 3 of that Act and the lower court was wrong in holding that the tenancy had not been terminated by the notices mentioned above in accordance with the provisions of the transfer of Property Act. During the course of the arguments However it was conceded By the learned counsel that in claiming the termination of tenancy by notice in accordance with the Transfer of Property Act, the plaintiff could not rely on the first notice dated 9-4-1946 so that the tenancy did not terminate on the expiry of the period fixed by that notice. Reliance was placed only on the second notice dated 13-9-1947 under which it was claimed that the tenancy came to an end on the midnight of 9-10-1947 and it is thereafter that the appellant got the right to bring the s
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
