1977 (2) TMI 130

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ppeal, the First Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the Trial Court and passed a decree of evic- tion against the respondents. The respondents preferred a second appeal to the High Court and the only question debat- ed before the High Court was in regard to the validity of the notice to quit. There were two grounds on which the notice to quit was assailed as invalid. The first is imma- terial since the decision of the High Court negativing it has not been challenged before us on behalf of the respond- ents. The second was that the notice to quit was invalid as it was not in con- formity with the requirements of section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. That section says that in the absence of a contract or local law or usage to the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... it expired with the end. of the month of the tenancy. The view taken by the High Court was that since by the notice to quit the appel- lant called upon the respondents to. vacate the premises within the month of October 1962 and not on the expiration of that month, the notice to quit was not in accordance with law and did not operate to determine the tenancy of the respondents. The question is whether this view taken by the High Court can be sustained. Now, it is settled law that a notice to quit must be construed not with a desire to find faults in it, which would render it defective, but it must be construed ut res magis valeat quam pereat. The validity of a notice to quit , as pointed out by Lord Justice Lindley, L.J. in Sidebotha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ts to vacate within the month of October 1962 ; what it meant was that the respondents could vacate at any time within the month of October 1962 but not later than the expiration of that month. The last moment up to which the respondents could, according to the notice to quit, lawfully continue to remain in possession of the premises was the mid-night of 31st October, 1962. We fail to see any differ- ence between a notice asking a tenant to vacate within the month of October 1962 and a notice requiring a tenant to vacate latest by the mid-night of 3 l st October, 1962, because in both cases, the tenant would be entitled to occupy the premises up to the expiration of 31st October, 1962 but not beyond it. This position would seem to follow .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X