JUDGMENT :- This is an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Azamgarh allowing an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the II Additional Munsif, Azamgarh.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows.

3. The plaintiff is the owner of a house situated in Rani Ki Sarai, Pargana Nizamabad, district Azamgarh. This house was rented to the defendants on an annual rent of Rs. 100.00. The defendants installed a flour mill in that house. A notice was served on the defendants that they were in arrears of rent for more than a year and had not paid it, therefore, the tenancy was terminated and the defendants were asked to vacate the premises. Another notice Ex. A.5 was also served on the defendants before the expiry of the period mentioned in the earlier notice. As the defendants did not vacate the house, therefore, the plaintiff filed this suit for arrears of rent and ejectment of the defendants.

4. The defendants contested the suit and inter alia pleaded that the notice was invalid.

5. The learned trial court held that the earlier notice was waived by the plaintiff and as the suit was filed before the time given in the second notice had expired, therefore, the suit for ejectment was premature. On this finding, the trial court decreed the suit for arrears of rent only. Being dissatisfied, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the lower appellate court. The lower appellate court held that the notice was valid and decreed the suit for ejectment as well. Being dissatisfied, the defendants-appellants have filed this second appeal in this Court.

6. The first point which was argued in this appeal was that even if the finding of the lower appellate court that by Ex. A.14, the notice was not waived by the plaintiff because he served another notice Ex. A.5 is correct, the suit for ejectment should not have been decreed because the notice Ex. A.14 was against the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.

7. The main ground on which the notice Ex. A.14 was assailed was that there was a mention in it that the defendants should vacate the premises in the 6th month. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the parties agreed that the tenancy was year to year and, therefore, six months' clear notice was necessary for ejectment of the defendants and as the defendants were not given clear six months' notice, therefore, the notice was invalid. The relevant words used in the notice was "aur makan nimlikhit jismen suplog bataur kiraye dar hain chhatwan mahina khali kardijia". This notice is dated 22-12-1959. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the defendants were entitled to occupy the house for six months after receipt of the notice and as a clear period of six months was not mentioned in the notice, therefore, on the basis of this notice, the defendants should not have been ordered to vacate the house. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that the words "chhatwen mahine" did not mean that the defendants were asked to vacate the premises in the beginning of the sixth month. According to the learned counsel for the respondent the expression "chhatwen mahine" meant that the defendants-appellants were to reside in the house for six months and then to vacate it.

8. The other argument of the learned counsel for the defendants-appellants was that the notice Ex. A.14 dated 22-12-1959 must have been received by the defendants a day or two after it was posted and, therefore, the defendants was not given six months' clear time from the date of the receipt of the notice. According to him, the acknowledgment receipt which was filed showed that the notice Ex. A.14 was received by the defendants on 22-12-1959. According to the plaintiff-respondent, the plaintiff meant that the defendants were to reside in the premises till the expiry of six months after the date of the receipt of the notice and then to vacate the house.

In Ahmed Ali v. Mohd. Jamal Uddin, 1963 A

Click Here to Read the rest of this document