RAJENDRAN Vs. GOVINDARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful defendant is the appellant.

(2.) THE respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of possession of the suit property from the appellant. THE case of the respondent/plaintiff was that the appellant/defendant became the tenant agreeing to pay a monthly rent of Rs.500/= and the tenancy is according to English Calendar. THE appellant/defendant did not pay the rent regularly and till January 2009, the arrears of rent payable by the appellant/defendant was Rs.5500/=. As the appellant/defendant did not pay the rent regularly and the respondent wanted to demolish and put up a new superstructure, a notice was given on 5.8.2008 requesting the appellant to hand over vacant possession of the building and also to pay the arrears of rent and the notice was received by the appellant and a reply was issued by him on 25.8.2008 denying the allegations contained in the notice. Hence, the suit was filed for recovery of possession.

(3.) MR.S.Sounthar, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no proper notice to quit was given by the respondent and in the notice given by the respondent in Ex.A1, it was not stated that the tenancy in favour of the appellant was terminated and it was only stated that the appellant has to vacate and hand over possession on 1.9.2008 and therefore, in the absence of any specific wording in the notice that the tenancy is terminated, there is no proper notice to quit. He also submitted that the substantial question of law that arises for consideration in the second appeal is whether the notice to quit was in accordance with section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.