BAJARANGLAL LACHA Vs. MANIKLAL BHATTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. P.R.Barik learned counsel for the appellant.

(2.) THIS Second Appeal has been filed against the confirming judgment in a suit filed by the respondents 1, 2 and 3. The suit was filed for evicting the appellant from the disputed shop room, where the appellant was admittedly a tenant.

(3.) IN the case of Bhagabandas Agarwalla v. Bhagabandas Kanu and others, AIR 1977 SC 1120, the Supreme Court, while considering the validity of the notice under Section 106 of the T.P.Act, laid down that the notice to quit must be construed not with a desire to find faults in it which would render it defective, but it must be construed "ut res magis valeat quam pareat". It has been further held that the notice to quit requiring the tenant to vacate the premises "within the month of October, 1962 otherwise he would be treated as trespasser from 1st November, 1962" made the intention of the authors of the notice clear that they were terminating the tenancy only with effect from the end of the month of October, 1962 and not with effect from any earlier point of time during the currency of that month. The tenancy was, therefore, sought to be determined by end of October, 1962 and not earlier and the notice to quit expired with the end of the month of tenancy as required by Section 106. In the circumstances of the said case, the Supreme Court held that the notice was a valid one which effectively determined the tenancy of the tenants with effect from the mid -night of 31st October, 1962.