BUDH SEN Vs. SMT. RAHIMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGEMENT This is a plaintiff s appeal who is the landlord of the premises in dispute.

(2.) THE appellant brought the suit against the defendant for her ejectment on the ground of default in payment of rent as also for recovery of the amount due as arrears of rent. He had further claimed damages for use and occupation of the premises in question for the period of the pendency of the suit as also future interest.

(3.) THE defendant-respondent appealed. The lower appellate court affirmed the findings of the trial court on the question of there being a default by the tenant and maintained the decree as regards the recovery of arrears of rent for the period in question and of the amount of interest thereon. It, however, dismissed the suit in so far as it related to the relief for ejectment of the tenant. It also set aside the trial court decree as regards pendente lite and future damages. In reversing the decree for ejectment of the defendant-respondent, the lower appellate court took the view that the notice (Ext. 1) was invalid, inasmuch as, it did not constitute a notice terminating the tenancy of the defendant-respondent. In arriving at that conclusion, the lower appellate court relied upon a decision of this court in the case of Bradley v. Atkinson ((1885) ILR 7 All 899) (FB). It held that the language of the notice in the present case was akin to that in the aforesaid decision which had taken the view that a notice of the kind which was before this Court in Bradley v. Atkinson did not amount to a valid notice to quit.