JOSE Vs. HYDROSE PALLIPARIPALANA COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants in two suits O.S. Nos. 293 and 303 of 1983 of the Munsiff's Court, Kozhikode are the appellants in the second appeals. The suit is for eviction. As quite often happens in such cases, the substantial contention taken and pursued was about the inadequency of the notice in terminating the tenancy. That plea was concurrently dismissed by the courts below. The notice terminating the tenancy was issued on 13-12-1982. Surrender was demanded on 1-2-1983. The tenancy was a monthly one. The courts below found, and rightly in my view, that there was proper and valid notice.

(2.) The only other contention urged related to the protection under the Rent Control Act, and the irregularity in the verification of the plaint. As for the former, there was a notification under the Rent Control Act, exempting buildings which constitute wakf property from the provisions of the Act. There was no challenge to the notification as such. The courts below noted the notification, and gave effect to it. That action cannot be faulted.

(3.) The alleged irregularity in the verification of the plaint was also found to be of no substance. There is no scope for interference with that finding.