AIDEW SANDIQUE Vs. R.R. BHARADAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is on behalf of the plaintiff arising out of a suit for rents as well as for eviction of the defendant from a house that was let out to the defendant in 1947. The defendant contested the suit on the ground that there was, no proper notice to quit. The learned Munsiff held that the writing whereby the tenancy was created was dated 24 -11 -1947 and as such a notice requiring the defendant to give vacant possession by the end of June 1950 was not a valid notice according to the terms of Section 106 , T.P. Act, and he refused to pass a decree for eviction. There was a decree for arrears of rent.

(2.) MR . Barua for the appellant in support of his contention relied on the Privy Council case reported in - -'Harihar Banerji v. Ramshashi Roy', A.I.R. 1918 PC 102 (A), wherein it is held that the notices to quit though not strictly accurate or consistent in the statements embodied in them may still be good and effective in law; the test of their sufficiency is not what they would mean, to a stranger ignorant of all the facts and circumstances touching the holding to which they purr port to refer, but what they would mean to tenants presumably conversant with all those facts and circumstances; and further, they are to be construed not with a desire to find fault in them which would render them defective but to make such use of them as may be possible - -(ut res magis valeat quam pereat).