RADHARANIBAI RAMDAYAL SAXENA Vs. RATANLAL GHASIJI PANWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal ought to fail. The appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent. The plaintiff alleged tenancy as commencing from 1st of every month which had been terminated by a notice to quit with 15 days' notice terminating with the term of tenancy. The plaintiff further alleged grounds under section 4(a) and (g) of the Accommodation Control Act.

(2.) THE defendant contested the suit. He alleged that the tenancy began on 22nd of every month and not on the 1st. The notice to quit was therefore said to be illegal and had not the effect of terminating the tenancy. The grounds under section 4(a) and (g) of the Accommodation Control Act were denied.

(3.) THIS is a second appeal against that decision Mr. Garg, who appears for the appellant, contended relying upon a decision reported in Ram Krishna v. Mohammad Yahia AIR 1960 All 482, that in the present case the notice demanding rent from the defendant did not allow him sufficient time to save his tenancy from consequences of a default by non -payment of rent. The notice in the present case was given on 8 -10 -1955 terminating the tenancy by 31 -10 -1955. Since, according to the learned counsel, law gave the tenant one month's time to make the payment there was no sufficient time given by the landlord's notice to save the tenancy.