BALWANT SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. KULDIP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE shop in dispute was given on lease to the Appellants by its owner, the Respondent, on rent at the rate of Rs. 50/ - per month. The tenancy was terminated by serving 15 days notice on one of the tenants, Balwant Singh and there after the present suit was filed for their ejectment.

(2.) THE only defence set up was that the tenancy had not been terminated by a valid notice inasmuch as the notice served on one of the tenants was not sufficient in law to terminate the tenancy. The trial Court rejected the defence and decreed the suit. In the appeal before the learned Additional District Judge the validity of the notice was attacked still on another ground that the notice period fell short of clear 15 days. None of the grounds, however, prevailed which necessitated the filing of this second appeal. Vide notice, Exhibit P -l, served on Balwant Singh, Appellant, the tenants were required to vacate the premises within 15 days from the receipt of that notice. According to the Learned Counsel for the Appellants when the notice required the tenants to vacate the premises within 15 days it did not provide clear 15 days period to surrender the possession. He further argued that according to the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter called the Act), the tenancy could not be terminated without 15 days clear notice and as notice Ex P -l, fell short of that period it was not a valid notice. There can be no doubt that under Section 106 of the Acta clear 15 days notice is a must for terminating the tenancy at will but in Punjab the provisions of this section are not applicable. The tenancy in Punjab can be terminated by notice providing reasonable period to the tenant to surrender the tenancy. This matter now stands concluded by a Full Bench decision of this Court in Bhaiya Rant v. Mahavir Parshad 1, and proposition No. VI formulated by the Bench reads as under:

(3.) In support of his other ground that the notice served on one of the tenants was not sufficient to terminate the tenancy, the Learned Counsel relied on Valiyaveettil Konnappan v. Mangot Velia Kunnivil Manikkam 2. In that case on the death of the original tenants, the lease rights had devolved on his two sons, the daughter and the widow. The heirs were held to be tenants in common and not joint tenants. It was for this reason that a notice served on some of them was held to be not sufficient. On the other hand, in the present case, both the Appellants jointly got the estate on lease and as such were joint tenants. Notice. Exhibit P -l, was addressed to both of them though service only on Balwant Singh has been proved. On these facts this case stands squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Kanji Manji v. The Trustees of the Port of Bombay 3) wherein it was held that in case of joint tenancy, a notice to one of the joint tenants was sufficient to terminate the tenancy. The validity of the notice is thus not assailable on any of the grounds urged This appeal, therefore, must fail and is hereby dismissed with costs.