MOHAMED KANI Vs. MEERAN KUNJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 2nd defendant in OS. 373 of 1965 of the Kottarakkara Munsiff's Court challenges in this second appeal the decree and judgment of the courts below on the question as to want of notice to quit as a condition precedent for eviction of the suit property from the possession of the appellant.

(2.) The suit was instituted by the respondent plaintiff for eviction with arrears and future rent on the basis of Ex. P1 dated 15 6 1960 executed by defendants 1 and 2 in respect of the land over which the appellant and the 1st defendant constructed two mobile shops. The 1st defendant died and the appellant is the sole legal representative. The rate of rent agreed to be paid under Ex. P1 was Rs. 10 a month. On the expiry of the lease, the appellant Continued to be in possession and while so the respondent instituted the suit in 1965 for eviction against the appellant and the 1st defendant.

(3.) The court below held that no notice to quit was necessary following 3 decisions, (1) Abdul Hameed Rawther v. Balakrishna Pillai, 1966 KLT 765 , (2) Subramonia Iyer v. Ammu alias Madhavi Amma, 1963 KLT 1009 and (3) Puram Chand v. Moti Lal and others, AIR 1964 Supreme Court 461. Of these decisions, decision No. 1 has been overruled, decision No. 2 distinguished and decision No. 3 explained in a Bench decision of this court reported in Abdul Hameed Rawther v. Balakrishna Pillai, 1968 KLT 865 holding that a notice to quit was necessary.