CHHAGANLAL Vs. CHHAGANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a landlord's appeal against a tenant for ejectment The suit was brought the ground that the appellant was in bona fide need of the permises and also on the ground that the tenant had fallen into arrears and did not pay the rent within one month of the service of the notice.

(2.) THE trial Court found that the land lord -appellant could not take advantage of clause 4 (g) of the Accommodation Control Act as he had some accommodation in the same locality. It also held that there was no default on the side of the tenant:to make payment. He further held that the notice of ejectment was valid. In appeal the learned District judge agreed with the trial Court regarding the need of the landlord to occupy the permises. He however held against the tenant about the tender of the arrears of rent.But the suit was dismissed broadly on the ground that the notice terminating tenancy was not valid. The landlord has now come up in second appeal.

(3.) AS regards the validity of the notice, the facts are that Ex -P/4 notice was issued on 6th August by which the appellant land lord sought to terminate the tenancy of the respondent. The notice stated that the respondent should vacate on the 31st of August. It is not in dispute that the tenancy was from month to month according to Gregorian calendar and would terminate by the end of the months Normally therefore the notice was bad because it asked the tenant to vacate the premises within that month, The tenant has a right to remain on the premises immediately before the mid -night. It is only after the mid -night of 31st that the fresh tenancy begins. The notice therefore should have indicated that the tenant should vacate by the end of the tenancy month.