MEHTA AND CO. Vs. V. LATEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is a registered firm doing business within the Mattancherry Municipal area in a building bearing municipal No. 11/76 belonging to the respondent-landlord. Eviction proceeding under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (Shortly stated the Act were taken against him and having been defeated in the courts below he has come up in revision. The point on which the parties joined issue before this court is as to whether the requirement of notice contemplated in section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act has been complied with. According to the petitioner no valid notice under section 106 was ever served on him and the one viz., Ex. P-2 is no proper notice in the eve of law. That Ex. P-2 notice is insufficient and does not satisfy the requirements of law cannot admit of any doubt, because it is not a notice of 15 clear days. To extract the relevant clause in the notice.

(2.) The rule is settled that the party should be given 15 clear days under section 106 of the T.P. Act. The Supreme Court has observed in Mangali Vs. Suganchand Rathi, 1964-5 S.C.R. 239. that ;

(3.) In Subadini Vs. Durga Charan Lal, ILR Calcutta 118. the learned Judges observed:-