(1.) THE short question involved in this appeal is, whether the courts below committed error of law in wrongly interpreting the quit notice issued by the appellant-plaintiff to the respondents-defendants?
(2.) THIS appeal has arisen following the dismissal of the suit filed by the appellant herein and the said suit was filed in O. S. No. 102/1994 for delivery of vacant possession and also mesne profit, in respect of the suit schedule property on the ground that the respondents who are the defendants before the trial court were the tenants of the suit schedule property pursuant to the rent bond executed as per Ex. D-2 between the appellant and the second defendant. The said suit of the appellant was resisted by the respondents by contending that the quit notice was defective in nature inasmuch as it was issued in contravention of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and therefore, the suit is not maintainable. Learned trial judge found that there was no dispute between the appellant and the respondents as landlord and tenant respectively and even the monthly tenancy was also an admitted fact because as a co-owner, the appellant was also entitled to issue the quit notice. However, as the notice was not in accordance with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and on the said sole ground, the trial court dismissed the suit of the appellant and the appeal preferred by the appellant in R. A. No. 30/2000 also met with the same fate though for different reasons as could be seen from the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court. The said court also found that there was no dispute with regard to the capacity of the appellant as the co-owner and the tenancy relationship between the appellant and the respondents. The lower appellate court concurred with the finding of the trial court in respect of Section 106 of the T. P. Act and found that there was no valid termination of the tenancy. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal, the plaintiff is before this Court.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant sri. S. S. Sripathy. None represented on behalf of respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 though served remained absent.