The Imperial Tea Company Limited V. Aramady

Present: Jayewardene A.J. 1923.

THE IMPERIAL TEA CO., LTD., v. ARAMADY.

 192-C. R. Nuwara Eliya, 7,352.

Landlord and tenant-Notice to quit " within " a month-Good notice- Date for which month's notice should run-Reasonable notice.

The plaintiff on February 28 gave notice to his tenant to quit the premises " within a month from the said date."

Held, that this was a good notice, as the tenant had the whole of the last day of the month within which to leave the premises.
The time from which a month should be calculated for the purposes of a notice to quit does not depend upon the date of the commencement of the tenancy.

The law requires that the tenant should have a reasonable notice, and a notice otherwise reasonable is not rendered unreasonable and invalid merely because it expires on some day other than the last day of the month calculated from the commencement of the tenancy.

THIS was an action for ejectment and rent by a landlord.

The facts are set out in the judgment of the Commissioner of Requests (M. T. Archibald, Esq.) :-

Defendant in this case is a monthly tenant. He admits that he was given a month's notice as far back as February 28 last. Defendant has been a monthly tenant since 1918, but he now turns round and says : " I am a pawnbroker. Therefore I must have at least one year's notice."

Now, it appears that defendant has Rs. 1,400 worth of articles in pawn, and certain sums outstanding which he has to recover. But this is no fault of the plaintiff company.

In 3 N. L. R. 340 it was held that the notice must be reasonable enough to admit of a tenant having an opportunity to secure another house. In this case defendant says he is unable to secure another house, as all the boutiques and houses belong to plaintiff company. On the terms of his tenancy defendant seems to me to have no case. I would enter judgment for plaintiff as prayed for at (a), (b), and (d) of the plaint, and for a further sum of Rs. 10 per month as rent from June 1, 1923, till possession.

Peri Sunderam, for the defendant, appellant. H. E. Garvin, for plaintiff, respondent.

October 4, 1923. JAYEWARDENE A.J.-

This is a case of landlord and tenant. The plaintiff, the landlord, sued the defendant his tenant, who occupies a boutique at Nanu-oya, for ejectment and rent. Questions have been raised with regard to the sufficiency, reasonableness, and waiver of the notice to quit

given. The defendant is admittedly a monthly tenant. The plaintiff, on February 28, 1923, gave the defendant notice to quit the premises " within a month from the said date." The first question is : Is this a month's notice ? On consideration, I think it is. " Within," with reference to time, means " not longer ago than," "not later than." So that the tenant had the whole of the last day of the month within which to leave the premises. It amounts to the same thing as giving a tenant a month's notice. He is not entitled to stay beyond the last day of the month. In my opinion the notice is a good month's notice. Then it is contended that in order to ascertain whether this is a month's notice, it is necessary to find out when the tenancy commenced, and reliance is placed on Warwick Major v. Fernando,[1 (1917) 4 C. W. R,221.] in which De Sampayo J. said:-

" It is well settled that a monthly tenant is entitled to a month's notice, and the time from which the month should be calculated would depend upon the commencement of the tenancy."

But in the present case no question was raised in the lower Court as to the date on which the tenancy commenced, and the parties appear to have assumed that the tenancy commenced on the first of a month. Mr. Sunderam asks that the case be sent back for the purpose of ascertaining the date of the commencement of the tenancy, but I see no reason to accede to his request. It has also been held in several cases that to terminate a monthly tenancy, it

Click Here to Read the rest of this document