AYISABEEVI Vs. ABOOBACKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlords are the revision petitioners. They applied in the court of the Rent Controller at Calicut for eviction of the respondent from the shop building rented out to him for a monthly rent. The petition was filed under S.11(4) of Act 16 of 1959 now replaced by the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act -- Act 2 of 1965 (shortly stated the Act); (arrears of rent and bona fide requirement for own occupation were also put forward by the landlord as grounds for eviction; but they have been found against by both the Controller and the appellate authority; the ground falling under S.11(4)(ii) alone was pressed). The ground under S.11(4) was also found against by the Controller; but on appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge reversed that finding and ordered eviction, on the ground that the tenant used the building in such a manner as to destroy or reduce its value materially and permanently. But in revision the learned District Judge has reversed the judgment of the appellate authority and dismissed the petition. Before the District Judge mainly two contentions were raised by the tenant and they are:--

(2.) On the first point, viz., whether the tenant has used the building in such a manner as to destroy or reduce its value materially and permanently, the contention of the landlord is that the western boundary of the property where the building stands has been obliterated with the result that the shop building is now tagged on to the godown and the western property belonging to a different person which also has been taken on rent by the present tenant. The owner of the western plot is one Krishna Menon. The western property, which lies contiguously with the eastern property which is the subject matter of the present proceedings, has been taken on lease by the present tenant and there a godown has been erected by him. He has now put up a corridor, marked O. P. E. F. in the plan, in between the two plots in such a way that the space west of the western wall of the shop building which forms part of the property of the petitioners has been brought under the roof of the corridor and the roof itself touches the western wall of the shop building and the eastern wall of the godown. By virtue of the corridor the shop building and the godown have been locked up together so as to form one building for all outward purposes. The fact that the property of the petitioners extends further to the western wall of the building is not disputed. The learned District Judge himself has noticed this fact as is clear from his observation in the order that:

(3.) Learned counsel for the tenant would, on the other hand, argue that the presumption can be availed of by the landlord, only if he proves that the letter was correctly addressed and from the postal receipt it is not possible to say that it was posted in the correct address of the tenant. A letter correctly addressed and posted, if not received back through the dead letter office, must be presumed to have reached the addressee. In the postal receipt, normally the whole address of the addressee is not given; only his name and the name of the post office to which the letter is addressed will be shown. So, from the postal receipt it cannot be argued that the letter was not sent in the proper address. The copy of the notice filed along with the postal , receipt shows that it was sent in the correct address of the tenant (Mullerimanathil 'Aboobacker, merchant, Midayi street, Kozhikode). As the letter was not received back, it has to be presumed, in the circumstances, that it duly reached the addressee and was received by him. Then the learned counsel for the respondent stated that even if it is conceded that the notice was issued, the landlord must further show that the notice is one strictly in accordance with S.106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Under normal circumstances a valid notice to quit under S.106 of the Transfer of Property Act should determine the tenancy if the 15 days expire with the end of a month of the tenancy. Ex.A1, I should think, has satisfied this requirement. Clear intimation was given by Ex.A1 that the tenancy would terminate by the end of 15 days, that is, by the end of February, 1961. Even if the notice is not strictly in accordance with the section, law insists that where the recipient of the notice is not likely to be misled as to the intention of the sender of the notice, it must be taken that the requirement of the section has been complied with.