ABDUL KARIM Vs. K S E B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Disposal of S.A. No. 419 of 1990 will result in the disposal of S.A. 416 of 1990.

(2.) The only dispute in this case is whether there is a valid notice in terms of S.106 of the Transfer of Property Act, terminating the tenancy after giving 15 days notice expiring with the end of the month of the tenancy concerned. There is not much dispute with regard to the facts. The respondents plaintiffs instituted the suit for recovery of vacant possession of a plot of land belonging to it on termination of the lease. Lease Was granted as seen from Ext. A1 dated 21.10.75 for a period of one year from 6.9.75. It was in respect of 33.46 Sq. meters of land for the purpose of conducting a vegetable shop after constructing a temporary shed. Lease was in favour of the defendant. The defendant violated certain conditions and started fish trade as well, apart from encroaching the neighboring property of the plaintiffs. This resulted in Ext. A2 notice dated 25.7.86. The notice reads as follows:

(3.) The respondent contended that in the notice as extracted above, the plaintiffs had been given sufficient notice in terms of the said Section terminating the lease ending with 31.8.96 and an option had been given to the defendant that if he had a case that the tenancy month is expiring with any other date he can treat that notice with reference to such date. It is also contended by the respondent referring to Ext. A1 document that the term regarding payment of rent was from month to month referring to the calender month even though it started on 6.7.1975. It was with reference to that terms contained in Ext. A1 that notice was issued as if the tenancy month terminated on the end of every month. By sufficient precaution option was also given in the notice to the tenant to treat the tenancy month according to his calculation. But he did not respond to that notice, with specific option. Naturally it shall be taken that he is bound for payment of rent as contained in Ext. A1 as if the tenancy month expired by the end of every month. Therefore, there was proper notice. He also relied on the decision of this Court in Pocker v. Kammu (1989 (1) KLT (SN) 55 Case No. 87). The report reads as follows: