MOHAMMAD ISMAIL KHAN Vs. MOHAMMAD MAHBOOB ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in A. S. No. 20 of 75 on the file of his Court, confirming the judgment and decree of the learned IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O. S. 1105 of 73 on the file of his Court. The appellants is the defendant against whom a decree was passed for eviction from the suit land and for mesne profits.

(2.) The dispute between the parties relates to a piece of land measuring about 151 sq. yards and situate within the municipal limits of Hyderabad. The land is appurtenant to the house bearing No. 17-5-114. The land belongs to the plaintiff who inducted the defendant into the possession of the same on 1-9-1965 as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 10. The plaintiff gave a notice dated 2-3-73 to the defendant determining the tenancy by 31-3-73 and later instituted the suit for eviction and mesne profits. The defendant pleaded that the lease was permanent and thus not liable to be determined. The plea of the defendant was disbelieved by the trial Court and the suit accordingly was decreed in plaintiffs favour. In the first Appellate Court the defendant gave up the plea of permanent tenancy but pleaded that the notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is defective since the tenancy is not one for month to month. The case of the defendant is that the lease is an agricultural lease for conducting dairy farm business and that therefore the notice ought to have given six months time for vacation from the land. The first Appellate Court rejected the plea and held that the tenancy between the plaintiff and the defendant was only a monthly tenancy and that the notice to quit was not defective.

(3.) Sri M. B. R. Sarma, the learned counsel for the defendant- appellants contends that the lease in question is an agricultural lease and that the notice giving only 15 days time is therefore bad. Sri Gopala Rao, the learned counsel for the plaintiff- respondent on the other hand contends that the lease in question is a monthly one and that at any rate the notice to quit issued in the instant case is valid.