THAKKER NARENDRAKUMAR T LALWANI Vs. JOSHI RAMPRASAD MOHANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . This is a tenants revision against an order of ejectment which was passed against him by the trial court and which was confirmed in appeal by the lower appellate court.

(2.) Mr. Modi however contends that in the instant case the tenancy has not been terminated by a valid and legal notice to quit. The rent note Ex. 24 shows that the tenancy commenced from 11-9-1961 for a period of 11 months and 29 days and the rent was payable every month. It is nowhere stated in the rent note that the rent was payable on the first day of each month or that the tenancy commenced on the first of each month and ended on the last day of each month. As the tenancy commenced from 11-9-1961 the month of tenancy will be from 11th of each month to the 10th of the succeeding month. The notice to quit Ex. 25 calls upon the tenant to vacate the premises on 31-7-1971 on the expiration of the month of tenancy that is on 1-8-1971 and it calls upon the tenant to hand over possession on 1-8-1971. As provided in sec. 106 of the Transfer or Property Act a lease of immovable property for agricultural or manufacturing purposes shall be deemed to be a lease from year to year terminable on the part of either lessor or lessee by six months notice expiring with the end of a year of the tenancy and a lease of immovable property for any other purpose shall be deemed to be a lease from month to month terminable on the part of either lessor or lessee by fifteen days notice expiring with the end of a month of the tenancy. The notice ex-facie shows that it does not expire with the end of the month of tenancy which was from the 11th day of a month to the 10th day of the succeeding month. The notice expires with the end of 31-7-1971 on the basis that the month of tenancy was from the first of each month to the last day of the same month. Mr. Modi in this connection strongly relies on Bhagbandas Agarwalla v. Bhagbandas Kanu and Others A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 1120 wherein it has been observed.

(3.) Mr. Desai here also draws my attention to the observations of the lower appellate court to the effect that in the instant case the parties after efflux of time of 11 months and 29 days which was the original term of tenancy have changed the month of tenancy from 11th of each month to the first of each month. In my opinion there is no warrant for the view taken by the lower appellate court which is based on no evidence and which is against the documentary evidence on record. There is no material on record to justify such a finding The very fact that after the expiration of the period for which the tenancy was originally granted a formal rent note was executed shows that the defendanttenant continued on the same terms and conditions under which he was inducted on the premises originally. The original term expired on 9-9-1962. The tenant continued in possession and the rent note was executed on 7-9-1963 and therefore if in the meanwhile there was any change of the month of tenancy effected by the parties the rent note would have mentioned st. Again the notice to quit Ex. 25 dated 2-6-1971 also in clear terms states as follows :