KRISHNAMURTHY Vs. SUBBA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful defendants are the appellants. The respondent laid action for ejectment of the appellants from the suit premises of 475 sq. yards situate in Kothapeta area of Guntur Municipal town and recovery of arrears of rent and future profits. One D. Raghuram was the original owner of the property and the respondent had purchased the demise premises under Ex. A-1 sale deed dated 4-8-1977, thereby the respondent became the owner of the property. Subsequently a notice Ex. A-4 dated 26-9-1977 determining the tenancy of the appellants was issued to the appellants to quit the suit premises. It is not in dispute that the Second appellant received the notice and the first appellant evaded receipt of the notice. Since the appellants did not deliver possession, the respondent initiated the action. The defence set up by the appellants is that Ex. A-4 notice is not valid in law in terms of Section 106 of the TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 Tor short 'the Act') and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

(2.) The plea of the appellants was found favour with the trial Court, which resulted in the dismissal of the suit, on appeal, the appellate court reversed the decree of the trial court and partly decreed the suit. Thus the Second Appeal.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Hanumantha Rao, has contended that under Ex. A-4 the respondent had determined the lease under Ex. A-4 itself and called upon the appellants to deliver possession of the suit premises by the end of October, 1977. Under Sec. 106 read with Sec. 111 of 'the Act' monthly tenancy is terminable by expiry of fifteen days, notice from the date of giving notice. There is no need for calling upon the tenant to deliver possession after the expiry of one month. He further contended that what is needed is determination of the tenancy. In this case, under Ex. A-4, tenancy was determined and the suit notice is not valid in law. The appellate court has misconstrued the notice. Therefore, there is substantial question of law.