MOIRANGTHEM BIDHU SINGH Vs. GANESH SINGH (DEAD)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is by the defendant who lost in both the Courts below.

(2.) THE facts material for the purpose of disposal of the question of law urged before me by the learned Counsel for the appellant may be stated thus:

(3.) BOTH the Courts below concurrently found that the plaintiffs were the owners of the land and the house in suit and that the defendant was their tenant. The only other question for decision was whether the tenancy in question was terminated in accordance with law. It is true, as submitted by Mr. Imo Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, that the Courts did not frame a precise issue on the point. But nevertheless, both the Courts below have given the necessary findings on the question as the plea of the defendant was that no notice of eviction was served on him. Both the Courts below proceeded on the footing that if the service of notice on the defendant was proved, it would be for the Court to examine the notice and find whether or not it was in accordance with law. As stated, both the Courts below have not only found that a registered notice of eviction was served on the defendant, but that it was a valid one. The learned District Judge has found that under Section 106 T.P. Act, a notice was served on the defendant terminating the tenancy with the end of February 1959 and he has based his finding on a perusal of the notice in question and also on the evidence of the respondent Ganesh Singh, since deceased. The learned District Judge further has found that the notice was served on the defendant on 10th February 1959, terminating the tenancy by the end of that month, which gives the defendant more than 15 days' time. The submission of the appellant is that there is no finding by any of the Courts below that the tenancy was with effect from the first of an English month. The answer is that it is the plaintiffs' case in the plaint and not denied by the defendant in the written statement.