VAREED PORINCHU Vs. OUSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant is the revision petitioner. Against him the landlord filed RCP. 5/65 on the file of the Rent Controller, Trichur, for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent and bonafide need for reconstruction. THE Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority found against the landlord; but in revision before the District Judge, the petition was allowed and eviction was ordered on the ground that the building needed reconstruction. By the time the matter reached the revisional court, the arrears were all paid and so the only ground available for the landlord was that he bonafide needed the building for reconstruction. Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant, contended that the revisional court has gone in excess of its powers in allowing the petition. In support of the position the counsel relied on a Single Bench decision of this court in Doraiswami Chettiar v. Kunjiraman (1969 KLJ. 227.) THE learned judge held in that case:

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the revision petitioner stated also that no proper notice to quit was served on him and as such the order is unsustainable. On this point it is worth remembering that no plea was raised by the tenant before the Rent Controller regarding want of notice. Ex P1 is the notice. It is dated 25th August, 1964; but it refers to a previous notice dated 15th February, 1964. The tenant has no case that such a notice was not received by him. In the counter-affidavit filed before the Rent Controller, no point at all was raised by him regarding notice. It was for the first time before the appellate authority that the objection regarding notice was raised. The case is that Ext P1 does not satisfy the requirements of law regarding notice. Under S. 106 of the T- P. Act, notice of a tenancy from month to month should be one terminating the tenancy and such notice should give 15 clear days terminable by the end of the month. But none of these points is of any serious consequence, since in the rent note Ex P5, the tenant has undertaken to quit the premises in terms of the notice issued by the landlord. In the earlier portion of the document the tenant had agreed to 30 days notice and from Ex P1 it is clear that 30 days notice had "already been given. In these circumstances it must be held that the tenant had contracted out of S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.