MOOTHORAKUTTY Vs. AYISSA BI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of possession with arrears of rent of a plot of land held on Karayma right under the document Ext. A1 dated 17th May 1941. Both the lower courts have decreed the suit and hence the second appeal by the 1st defendant.

(2.) The lower courts have held that the transaction covered by Ext. A1 does not come within the provisions of the Malabar Tenancy Act so as to confer fixity of tenure on the 1st defendant. I do not propose to investigate the correctness of that decision, though it is also objected to, and I take for the purpose of this case that the Malabar Tenancy Act does not apply. But I make it clear that if it becomes necessary for the parties to agitate this question, they are free to do so and I leave that question open.

(3.) The lower courts have further held that the notice issued by the landlord's lawyer was not a proper notice to quit. Nevertheless, they have held that no notice was necessary in the case and therefore the suit was properly laid. On the basis of that finding they have granted the decree for eviction.