DINESH CHANDRA CHAKRABORTY Vs. MAHESH CHANDRA ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the defendant and is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Assistant District Judge No. 2, Gauhati, in Title Appeal No. 26/68. The plaintiff's case is as follows: -

(2.) THE plaintiff let out on 25 -10 -56 a room at Lakhtokia in the town of Gauhati to the defendant for the purpose of business at Rs. 30/ - as rent per month. As he needed the room for his own use, on 14 -3 -62, he served a notice on the defendant to vacate it. On 28 -4 -62, the defendant executed an agreement (proved as Ext. 1 in the case) whereby he undertook to vacate the room within one year from the date of execution of Ext. 1. He undertook by that deed to pay a compensation at the rate of Rs. 3/ - per day to the plaintiff and to be evicted without notice, on his failure to vacate the room as promised. The defendant failed to comply with the terms of Ext. 1. The plaintiff then issued a notice of ejectment, Ext. 2, dated 11 -1 -66 asking the defendant to vacate the room by the end of January 31, 1966 and demanded payment of compensation of Rs. 2970 -/. As the defendant did not comply, the plaintiff instituted the instant suit. The defendant filed a written statement and contested the suit. His defence, material for the purpose of this appeal, is that the agreement dated 28 -4 -62 did not ipso facto determine the tenancy and that he was entitled to a valid notice and that the notice dated 11 -1 -66 issued by the plaintiff was not valid in law.

(3.) MR . J. Majumdar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant -appellant, admits that Ext. 1 is not a valid deed of lease; but his contention is that a new tenancy from month to month has been created by it and that it can be looked into for the purpose of determining the commencement of that tenancy. According to him, a new tenancy created under Ext. 1 commenced on 28 -4 -62 and the tenant is entitled to a 15 days' notice terminating the tenancy on the 27th of a month, but as by Ext. 2 the plaintiff asked the defendant to quit by the end of 31st of January, 1966, the notice was invalid.