9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the defendant was a tenant from month to month, entitled only to fifteen days' notice to quit. 2. Whether the notice to quit was in proper form. 3. Whether the notice was served in accordance with law. Detailed Analysis: 1. Tenancy from Month to Month: The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was a tenant from month to month, requiring only fifteen days' notice to quit. The defendant argued that his tenancy had not been validly terminated. The court examined the tenancy terms and found that the defendant initially took the premises for one year at a rent of Rs. 275. Under section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, a lease exceeding one year or reserving a yearly rent must be made by a registered instrument, which was not done in this case. Consequently, the tenancy was renewed from month to month under section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act, as the lease was for a stationery shop and not for agricultural or manufacturing purposes. The court rejected the argument that an implied agreement existed to hold over from year to year, as this would require a registered instrument. Therefore, the tenancy was terminable by fifteen days' notice expiring with the end of a month of the tenancy. 2. Form of the Notice: Two objections were raised regarding the form of the notice: - First, the notice dated 16th Baisakh 1318 called upon the defendant to vacate by 31st Baisakh 1318. The court found that this provided the required fifteen days' notice, excluding the day of service and expiring at the end of the month. - Second, the notice was signed by Bharat Chandra De on behalf of the first plaintiff. The court held this objection as untenable since section 106 allows a notice to be signed by an authorized agent, and the defendant admitted that Bharat Chandra De was the am-mukhtear (authorized agent) of the first plaintiff. 3. Service of the Notice: The court considered whether the notice was served in accordance with the second paragraph of section 106, which requires the notice to be tendered or delivered personally to the party or to one of his family or servants, or affixed to a conspicuous part of the property if personal service is not practicable. The plaintiffs attempted to serve the notice by registered post, but the cover was returned with an endorsement that the addressee refused to accept it. The court found no oral evidence to show when the cover was posted or tendered. The post marks indicated the cover was posted on 29th April 1911, but there was no proof it was tendered to the defendant on the same date. The vernacular endorsement on the cover was not admissible as evidence of tender and refusal, as the necessary conditions under section 32(2) of the Indian Evidence Act were not met. The court also noted that the cover was addressed to the defendant's place of business, not his residence, as required by section 106. Therefore, the plaintiffs failed to prove that the notice was duly served. Conclusion: The court confirmed the decree of the Subordinate Judge, dismissing the suit for ejectment and the appeal with costs.
|
