1945 (4) TMI 18 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
- Validity of notice to quit in ejectment suit
- Interpretation of Bihar House Rent Control Order, 1942, Section 13

Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of Notice to Quit
The appeal concerns a suit in ejectment where the defendant, a monthly tenant, received a notice to quit on 7th July 1942, expiring on 31st July 1942. The appellant argued the notice was invalid as it should have expired on 1st August 1942. The court clarified that a monthly tenancy does not end at the end of each month but is determinable by due notice. Section 106, T. P. Act, mandates a notice from month to month to expire at the end of a month. Previous cases cited by the appellant were distinguished as they involved tenants under a lease for a term of years. The court held the notice given to the defendant was valid, dismissing the appeal on this issue.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Bihar House Rent Control Order, 1942, Section 13
The appellant contended that the Bihar House Rent Control Order, 1942, applied, requiring the lower court to dismiss the suit under Section 13. The court analyzed the extension of the Order to Muzaffarpur district and the definition of "tenant" under Section 13. It was argued that the word "tenant" should not include a person in possession after a valid notice to quit. The court emphasized that "tenant" in Section 13 should refer to tenants under a tenancy agreement or statutory tenants under specific Order sections. Extending the term "tenant" as argued by the appellant would lead to anomalous consequences. Citing relevant English cases, the court concluded that an ex-tenant with a decree in ejectment cannot be considered a tenant under Section 13. The appeal was dismissed on this issue as well.

Conclusion:
The High Court of Patna, through Shearer and Varma, JJ., upheld the validity of the notice to quit in the ejectment suit and interpreted Section 13 of the Bihar House Rent Control Order, 1942, to exclude ex-tenants with decrees in ejectment from the definition of "tenant." The appellant's arguments were refuted based on legal provisions and precedents, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory interpretations and clarified the scope of protection under the Rent Control Order.