CHANDRAKANT NAGINDAS Vs. RAMI MAGANLAL HIRABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application raises a question about the validity of a notice given by the applicant, a landlord, to opponent No. 1, who is his tenant, under Section 34 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The facts of the case in which the question arises may be shortly stated.

(2.) THE land in dispute is a field bearing Survey No. 1431 admeasuring 9 acres 4 gunthas situate in the village of Dholka in the Ahmedabad District. The applicant Chandrakant, a minor, is the owner of the land. On February 5, 1930, one Khushaldas, who was the grandfather of the minor Chandrakant, granted a lease to opponent No. 1 for a period of 25 years. The period of 25 years would expire on February 5, 1955; and this is not disputed. On December 20, 1953, Chandrakant's guardian gave a notice to opponent No. 1 under Section 34 on the allegation that the applicant would want the land for personal cultivation and by the notice the tenancy was terminated with effect from March 31, 1955.

(3.) THE question of the validity of the notice arises in this way. Mr. Patel contends that the notice, which was given by the applicant's guardian on December 20, 1953, terminating the tenancy with effect from March 31, 1955, was a valid notice. The view, which the Bombay Revenue Tribunal took, was that the tenancy was not validly terminated inasmuch as the applicant's guardian sought to terminate the tenancy with effect from March 31, 1955, whereas the tenancy should have been terminated with effect from February 5, 1955. The question, therefore, which arises for decision is, whether the notice terminating the tenancy with effect from March 31, 1955, was a valid notice.