KRISHNAN NAIR SREEDHARAN NAIR Vs. OOMMOOMMEN ABRAHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in O. S. 193 of 1977 of the Munsiff's Court, Mavalikkara, is the appellant herein. The plaintiff in the suit is the respondent. The appellant is the tenant of a building belonging to the plaintiff-respondent. As per rental arrangement dated 8-10-1974, evidenced by Ext. A1, the building was let to the defendant, for one year. The agreed rent was Rs. 1.55 per day. After the expiry of the term, the defendant continued in occupation of the building. The plaintiff instituted O. S. No. 322 of 1975 for eviction and for arrears of rent. It was contended by the defendant in the said suit that there was no valid notice terminating the tenancy as contemplated by section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The notice terminating the tenancy in that case was Ext. 85. By Ext 85 notice the tenancy was terminated with effect from 8-11-1975. According to the defendant, the tenancy should be terminated on the day preceding the date of tenancy. The contention of the defendant, that the tenancy should be determined at the end of the day preceding that date with a further stipulation that the vacant possession of the building is to be given on the next date (8-11-1975), was accepted by the court. In that case, the tenancy was terminated and vacant possession was demanded at the end of 8th November. It was held that there was no valid notice terminating the tenancy. The suit was dismissed. Thereafter the present suit O. S. 193 of 1977 was filed claiming that the rent is in arrears from 1-7-1977 in addition to Rs. 240/ payable towards rent prior to 30-6-1977. A prayer for the issue of injunction against the defendant from making structural alteration of the build-ing was also included in the plaint. Stating that the tenancy, is terminated as evidenced by Ext. B-1 dt. 18-4-1977, and Ext. B-2 dt. 7-2-1977, the suit was instituted.

(2.) The defendant filed a written-statement admitting the execution of the rent deed. Ext. A-1. According to him the rent was paid on the 1st day of the succeeding calendar month. Since the plaintiff refused to issue a receipt the rent was remitted through money order. Rent till 30-6-1977 was paid. The plaintiff accepted rent after notice. The defendant also admitted dismissal of the earlier suit O. S. 322 of 1975. According to him, he is not liable to be evicted.

(3.) The trial court by its judgment dt. 28th Sept. 1979 found that the plaintiff is entitled to realise Rs. 240/- towards arrears of rent till 30-6-1977 and is also entitled to realise rent from 1-7-1977 at the rate of Rs. 46.50 till recovery of possession of the building. One of the important pleas taken by the defendant was that the tenancy arrangement was not terminated by a proper issue of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The trial court adverted to Ext. B-l wherein the demand was made to the tenant to surrender vacant possession on 8-6-1977. The notice terminating the tenancy evidenced by Ext B-l was held to be valid: On that basis, the plaintiff landlord was held entitled to recover possession of the demised premises.