KARTHIKEYA PRESS PRINTERS AND BOOK BINDERS 254 BROUGH ROAD ERODE 1 M/S KARTHIKEYA TRADERS 254 BROUGH ROAD ERODE 1 Vs. MADARSA DAWOODIYA ARABIC COLLEGE TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 1st respondent/plaintiff filed the suits in O.S.Nos.637 and 639 of 1987 against the appellants for recovery of possession of the suit properties and for damages on the basis that the 1st defendant-firm in the respective cases are the tenant with respect to the appellants' buildings in question leased out to the 1st defendant. By issuing a notice on 29.10.86 and terminating the tenancy, the Ist respondent/plaintiff sought for possession of the buildings leased out to the 1st defendant. Since possession was not handed over, plaintiff filed the above suits.

(2.) THE defendants contested the suits contending inter alia that the suits are not maintainable as the civil court has no jurisdiction to sustain the suits. According to the defendants/tenants though the plaintiff is the trust, the proper remedy to recover possession is only under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, hereinafter called the Act, as the plaintiff-trust is not exempted from the purview of the Act. It is also contended that the notice to terminate the tenancy is not in accordance with Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. It is further defended that since the plaintiff has come forward with the plea that the properties belong to the Wakf Board, and the competent person has not filed the suits, the suits are not maintainable under the provisions of THE Indian Wakf Act. In O.S.No. 639 of 1987 the defendants have raised the additional defence stating that the suit is not maintainable for non-joinder and also misjoinder of parties.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that in both the cases, the notice under Ex;A7 dated 29.10.86 was issued under Sec.106 of the Transfer of Property Act, by the plaintiff, asking the appellants/tenants to surrender vacant possession of the properties on or before 30.11.86. In view of the findings given by the courts below, we have to proceed only on the basis that the tenancy commences from the 1st of English calendar month. Under the notice marked as Ex.A7, it is specifically stated that "my client hereby terminates the tenancy and you are hereby called upon to surrender vacant possession of the building on or before 30th November, 1986" Relying on these expressions in the notice, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the tenancy was terminated by that notice dated 26.10.86, which came into effect on that day and so the said termination cannot be sustained in law. According to him, the monthly tenancy is terminable by expiry of 15 days notice from the date of giving notice, and the notice to terminate the tenancy must expire with the end of the month of the tenancy. On that basis he submitted that since Ex.A7 was issued on 29.10.86 terminating the tenancy with effect from 29.10.86, the same would be invalid under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.