SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE Vs. KOTAVA CHOUDARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question that arises for consideration in this Second Appeal is, whether the notice Ex. A-1 dated 8-12-1978 is a valid notice to quit?

(2.) The unsuccessful dercndant in both the Courts below is the appellant herein. The respondent filed the suit for delivery of possession of the demised premises. He issued a notice under Section 80 CPC. to the appellant calling upon him to vacate the premises and also to pay the rent or mesne profits for the period for which they were in occupation of the premises,

(3.) The trial Court decreed the suit and on appeal it was confirmed. It is contended that no notice to quit has been issued -and therefore the suit has not been property laid. Sri Krishna Reddy, learned counbel for the respondent argued, taking great pains to refer to catena of decisions covering the field. It is not necessary to deal with all the decisions, as not being relevant to the point in issue but suffered. to state that the only question is, whether the notice Ex. A-1 can be continued to be a notice under Sec. 106 of the TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 7 Determination of jural relationship of landlord and tenant founded on contract in terms of Section 111 (h) read with Sec.106 of the TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 is sin qua non for an action for ejectment, if there is no notice to quit, in the face of admitted contractual tenancy between the appellant and the respondent, the suit has not been validly laid. Thus the question as posed earlier assumes materiality in this case. In his notice Ex. A-l the respondent has clearly stated that.