CHOWDRANI MAHADEVAN Vs. S CHANDRASHEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the stage of admission the parties addressed arguments on merits of the appeal. The only short point regarding the legality of the notice issued under S. 106 of the T. P. Act is involved. Hence, the appeal is treated as heard on merits.

(2.) THE appellant is the plaintiff. The respondent is the defendant. The suit schedule premises was leased to the respondent by the appellant on a monthly rental basis at the rate of Rs. 4,500/- per month under a written agreement dated 23-6-1994. It is the case of the appellant that the respondent has kept the premises vacant and has not paid rents since 1996. Therefore, notice of termination of tenancy was issued as required under law under S. 106 of the T. P. Act. Thereafter suit came to be filed. The notice according to the records, is issued on 28-10-1999 terminating the tenancy and directing the tenant to hand over possession by 30-11-1999. According to the finding of the trial Court and as per the terms of the agreement, the tenancy is monthly tenancy as per the English calendar month. The issuance of notice is not in dispute. The trial Court however, took a view that the notice issued is in accordance with law by placing reliance on the decision of this Court in ILR 1994 226 (Sic ). In the said decision, the question that was considered and adjudicated was with reference to the computation of the period of notice and it is held that the day of issuance of notice is to be excluded while computing. Therefore, I find that the ratio has no application to the facts.

(3.) THE trial Court has misunderstood the purport and the legal effect of the provisions of S. 106 and wrongly holds that the notice to be issued should be only for a period of 15 days and not more. In the instant case, notice is issued in the month of 28-10-1999 terminating the tenancy by the end of 30-11-1999. That means to say a sufficient notice time of more than 15 days is given and also the termination coincides with the end of the month. Merely because the time given under the notice is more than 15 days, the notice does not become invalid, if it coincides with the end of the month as declared in the provisions of S. 106 of the Act. In that view of the matter, I find that the notice issued is valid and legal. Apart from the legality of the notice there is no other defence raised to resist the claim of the plaintiff. Therefore, the partial dismissal of the suit rejecting the decree for eviction is set aside, the appeal is allowed in the result the suit of the plaintiff is allowed, granting the relief of ejectment and other relief sought for in the plaint including the arrears in a sum of Rs. 1,89,000/- is already granted by the trial court. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff as prayed for is to be decreed. Accordingly, the decree to be drawn. Suit decreed.