SATYANARAYANA SINGH Vs. RAJAGOPALASWAMY DEVASTHANAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The substantial question of law framed in this Second Appeal is, the Courts below failed to note that the quit notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, (hereinafter called the Act) is not a valid notice in the eye of law as it was issued on 27-6-1969 ; whereas the tenancy starts from first of every month, and in order to evict the appellant, the plaintiff-Devasthanam, should have issued 15 days' clear days notice on the first of succeeding month and should have given 15 days' time ; in the absence of which, the quit notice itself is invalid and cannot be acted upon.

(2.) The relevant facts may be noticed : .The respondent - Devasthanam, filed a suit for the recovery of possession of the suit premises (wherein the appellant herein is running a Tea shop), arrears of rent and damages. Before filing the suit, a notice dated 27-6-1969 (Ex.A-1) under Section 106 of the Act, was issued which was suitable replied by the appellant's advocate on 7-7-1969. Thereafter the suit was laid. Both the Courts below held that the suit notice was valid and therefore the suit mast be decreed. The decree was only confined to possession and not to arrears of rent or damages as it was held that the plantiff was not entitled to them.

(3.) In this Second Appeal two contentions are raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, one is that the suit notice under Ex,A-1 dated 27-6-1969, is not a valid one as it does not accord with the spirit and language Sec. 106 of the Act. The submission is based on the ground that the suit notice issued on 27-6-1969, says that ,'from the date of the receipt of the notice, within one month thereof, the appellant herein shall vacate the premises and give delivery of possession of the property and also pay arrears of rent.