DURGA PARSHAD Vs. BHAGWAN DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DURGA Pershad appellant was a tenant under Shrimati Bhagwan Devi landlady. On 11th March, 1960, a rent-note (Exhibit P. 7) was executed by Durga Pershad tenant whereunder a plot of land was taken by him on lease for a period of eleven months from 20th Jan. 1960. The rent-note inter alia recited that in case the landlady wanted possession of the plot she should give a written notice in accordance with law. After the period covered by the rent-note had expired the tenant continued in occupation of the plot of land. Some rent receipts were placed on the record showing that the parties always treated the month of tenancy as 20th to 19th of each succeeding month. Exhibit P. 16 is a receipt dated 6-6-1964 evidencing the payment of Rs. 40/as rent from 20th May, 1904, to the 19th June, 1964. The landlady sent a notice dated 24th July. 1964 to the tenant which was served on him on 30th July 1964. In the said notice it was inter alia staled "your tenancy commences on the 201h of every English calendar month and terminates on the 19th of every subsequent month. " Paragraph 5, which has been the subject-matter of controversy, reads. 'your tenancy is, therefore, hereby terminated and you are hereby called upon to vacate the premises and give vacant possession of the plot to my client on or before 19-8-1964.

(2.) THE only question canvassed before me is regarding the validity of the said notice dated 24th July, 1964. Both the trial Court and the lower appellate Court decided that the notice was valid. Mr. A. R. Whig, the learned counsel for the appellant, has raised two contentions :

(3.) SO far as the first contention is concerned, it need not detain me because apart from the fact that even in the rent receipt dated 6-2-1960 (Exhibit P. 9) the month of tenancy is stated to be 20-1-1960 to 19-2-1960, it clearly appears from the receipt dated 6-6-1964 (Exhibit P. 16) that after the expiry of the period of 11 months the month of tenancy was taken by the parties as 20th to 19th of the succeeding month. If that is treated by the parties as the month of tenancy, no question of exclusion of any day under Section 110 can arise. That provision could apply only in determining the period of tenancy under the rent-note and does not apply to monthly tenancies.