KRISHNANATH VASSU MALWANKAR Vs. LEOPOLDO HILARIO PIEDNDE PEREIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal filed by the heirs and legal representatives of the original defendant as against a decree for possession against which the appeal also came to be dismissed.

(2.) THE relevant facts are as follows: The plaintiffs the respondents, are the owners of the suit property. The suit properties having therein the following trees, approximately, 900 islands of bamboos, 20 mango graphs (Grafts), 100 Bindees 40 tamarind and many other forest type trees which would fetch 1000 carts of firewood. The suit property was leased by the predecessors -in -title of the respondents to the defendant by a deed of lease dated January 9, 1944, for a period of three years ending on December 31. 1946. Thereafter every year the lease was renewed orally, but the defendant was required to pay a higher rent. This position continued till about 1967. Thereafter the respondents filed a suit for eviction against the defendant being suit No. 13 of 1968. That suit was decreed by a judgment, and order dated April 30, 1971. The decree was executed. But in the meanwhile, the defendant appealed against the said judgment. The said appeal was allowed and the decree of the trial Court was reversed. Against the said order the respondents preferred a second appeal which also was dismissed by the then Judicial Commissioner on August 23, 1974. On an application made by the defendant for restoration of possession, the Court issued a warrant of possession and finally on December 16, 1974 the defendant was put in possession of the suit premises.

(3.) THE defendant filed his written statement. He contended that the alleged notice of termination of lease was bad in law and therefore, the suit was bad in law and was liable to be dismissed. Without prejudice he admitted the earlier proceedings. There is no controversy with regard to the notice and the subsequent events. The main contention of the defendant was that the suit was not maintainable inasmuch as there was no proper notice as required by the law and the notice dated October 24, 1974 or even the notice dated December 12, 1974 is not proper and valid notice, and it cannot be said that the lease stood terminated.