SADASIVAN Vs. KESAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defeated defendant is the appellant. The suit was for recovery of a building in the possession of the defendant as a building tenant. The Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is not applicable to the case. The only contention which required examination was a contention based on the insufficiency and invalidity of the notice under S.106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The trial held that the quit notice issued in the case was not valid and legal and so dismissed the suit. The plaintiff filed an appeal before the District Court, Quilon. The learned District Judge allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. Now the defendant appeals.

(2.) Here also the only question that has to be considered by me in this appeal is in regard to the validity of the suit notice. The short factual format of the case is as follows:

(3.) Plaintiff sent a notice under S.106 of the Transfer of Property Act, terminating the tenancy. The notice is dated 5-7-1980. In the notice it is stated that the tenancy is terminated with effect from 31-8-1980. The Trial Court as well as the appellate court found, since the month of tenancy begins with 25th of an English calendar month and ends with 24th of the next calendar month, the notice is obviously not in conformity with the requirements of S.106 of the Transfer of Property Act. No doubt, it is very specifically stated in S.106 of the Transfer of Property Act that the determination of the tenancy should ''expire with the end of a month of tenancy". I feel that the courts below are right in their conclusion that the notice is not in conformity with the prescription of S.106 of the Transfer of Property Act.