VARGHESE Vs. SIVARAMA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the plaintiff. The suit was for ejectment of the defendant-tenant from a building. It is a shop-room. The kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is not applicable to the area where the building situates.

(2.) NORMALLY, the tenant has to surrender the building. The only point that survived for the consideration of the courts below was whether there was a proper and valid termination of the tenancy by issuing a notice terminating the tenancy under S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The trial court decreed the suit, holding that there is no defect in the notice terminating the tenancy. The defendant filed an appeal. The appellate court allowed the appeal holding that there is no valid termination of the tenancy by a proper notice under S. 106 of the T. P, Act. Now the plaintiff appeals.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant has necessarily to meet the point raised by the learned counsel for the respondent. He submits that the plaintiff has sent the notice by posting the notice on 25-4-1980, and if normal time required for reaching a letter by post to the addressee is taken, it can be presumed that the letter should have been reached within three or four days, from the date of posting. He submits that if this presumption is taken, the notice satisfies the requirement under S. 106 T. P. Act. THE learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant can rely on S. 114 illustration (f) of the Evidence Act read with S. 27 of the General Clauses Act, (10 of 1897 ).