PUTHUKKUDI MALIAKKAL SAIFFUDDIN Vs. PRAKASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IS failure to issue statutory notice under the proviso to Section 11(2)(b) and the proviso to Section 11(4)(i) of Act 2 of 1965 to one of the joint tenants fatal to an application for eviction is the question that emerges for consideration in this case.

(2.) TENANTED premises was let out to respondents 1 and 2 as per Ext. A1 agreement dated 21.03.1987. Respondents 1 and 2 kept the rent in arrears from 21.12.1990 onwards. Petitioners sent lawyer's notice-A3 dated 11.10.1991 to the first respondent demanding arrears of rent. Respondents inter alia contended that the petitioner had failed to issue a statutory notice under the proviso to Section 11(2)(b) to both the respondents. The notice was served on the first respondent alone. Hence there is no proper notice and therefore application under Section 11(2)(b) is not maintainable. Landlord's complaint is that since respondents 1 and 2 contrary to the terms of the lease-deed sublet the premises to third respondent notice was sent only to first respondent. Petition was resisted by the tenant contending that in the absence of notice to 2nd respondent, the petition is not maintainable since respondents 1 and 2 being tenants-in-common. Landlord stated that respondents 1 and 2 in violation of the terms of the lease have sublet the premises to third respondent who is doing business under the name and style "Neolights" and consequently landlord is entitled to get eviction under Section 11(4)(i) of Act 2 of 1965.

(3.) A registered notice to the tenant intimating contravention of the terms of the lease is a pre-condition for filing petition under Section 11(4)(i). Tenant on being alerted of the contravention fails to terminate the sublease within thirty days of the receipt of the notice the landlord can seek eviction under Section 11(4)(i). So far as this case is concerned, admittedly, though notice has been addressed to both the respondents 1 and 2 in the body of the notice it was served only on the first respondent. Question arises as to whether failure to serve notice on the second respondent would affect the maintainability of the petition under Section 11(4)(i) and Section 11(2)(b). A1 rent deed is executed in favour of respondents 1 and 2 in their joint names.