KUNHAMBU Vs. KUNHAYISSUMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant in O. S. No. 207 of 1972 on the file of the Munsiff, Taliparamba, a suit for recovery of possession of a shop-room with arrears of rent is the appellant in this second appeal. THE short point that arises for consideration in this second appeal is this. THE plaintiff-landlord issued a notice on 24 71972 terminating the tenancy with effect from 191972 alleging that the tenancy commenced on 141972. In the notice an option was also given to the tenant to put an end to the tenancy with effect from the date of commencement of tenancy if, according to him, the date or commencement was not 1 41952. THE court found that the date of commencement of the tenancy was 10th medom 1127 M. E. and not 141952. THEn, can it be said that there is a proper and valid notice terminating the tenancy under S. 106 of the Transfer of property Act, 1882. Should not the notice contain a clear intention to terminate the lease on a specific date?

(2.) THE plaint case is that a shop-room belonging to the plaintiff was leased out to the defendant on 1-4-1952 for eight months on a monthly rent of Rs. 30/ -. THE plaintiff terminated the tenancy by Ext A-1 registered notice dated 24-7-1972. By Ext. A-1 the tenancy was terminated with effect from 1-9-1972. But by Ext. A-1 an option was also given to the defendant-tenant to put an end to the tenancy with effect from the date of entrustment if, according to him, the date of entrustment was not 1-4-1952. As the defendant did not vacate even after the expiry of the time fixed in the notice the plaintiff filed the suit. In the written statement the defendant pointed out that the tenancy commenced on 10th Medom 1127 M. E. and contended that the tenancy has not been put an end to by Ext A-1 notice sent. Though the trial court came to the conclusion that the entrustment was on 10th Medom as contended by the defendant it was also held that Ext A-1 notice to quit was proper and valid. Accordingly, a decree for possession was given. From the judgment and decree of the trial court the defendant went in appeal before the court below. THE plaintiff also filed a memorandum of cross-objections. THE court below agreed with the trial court on the question of sufficiency of the notice to quit. THE memorandum of cross-objections was partly allowed. In this second appeal the defendant questions the judgments and decrees of the courts below.

(3.) IN the result, the second appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Dismissed. . .