VIRUPAKSHAIAH ALIAS VEERAIAH Vs. SHIVAPUTRAPPA BASAPPA GOLAPPANAVAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) defendant having lost in both the courts below, has preferred this second appeal.

(2.) the suit property had been acquired by the plaintiff pursuant to a decree for specific performance dated 16-8-1959 in o.s. No. 15 of 1975 subject to the tenancy rights of the defendant. The plaintiff served a notice on the defendant on 31-5-1980 terminating the tenancy and seeking possession by the midnight of 30-6-1980. The factum of tenancy is not in dispute. It is also admitted that the defendant had been paying an annual rent of Rs. 200/-. It has also been found on facts that the defendants are using the demised premises for dwelling as well as for running of a printing press. Defendant resisted the ejectment on the ground that the premises in question was being used for manufacturing purpose and as such, serving of six months' notice was mandatory in view of Section 106 of the Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 (in short the 'act'). But such notice not having been served, no decree for ejectment as claimed could have been granted. Both the courts below, on consideration of the pleadings of the parties and evidence brought on record, came to the conclusion that on the facts of the present case, the tenancy being of month to month and not for manufacturing purpose, the notice as served was sufficient. Accordingly, the suit for ejectment was decreed.

(3.) this appeal was admitted for considering the following substantial question of law: