SIARAM SINGH Vs. MAHANTH SHRIRAM KISHUN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit for eviction in respect of the house mentioned in Schedule B and a vacant piece of land mentioned in Schedule A of the plaint, and for arrears of rent, on the ground that the tenant-appellant defaulted in making payment of the rent for more than two months. Both the courts below have held that the tenant-appellant was in arrears for more than two months and valid notice terminating the two tenancies was given to him. Therefore, a decree for eviction and for arrears of rent had been passed against the defendant appellant.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the appellant urged only one point before me, that the suit premises form two separate and distinct tenancies, and, hence one notice tinder Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, determining the two tenancies, is not valid in law and therefore, one suit for eviction in respect of two tenancies was not maintainable.

(3.) From the Judgments of the two courts below it does not appear that this point was ever taken in the courts below. The only point which was urged in the court below was that in respect of Schedule A property six month.' notice was necessary, as it was a yearly tenancy. The Courts below have held that the tenancy even in respect of Schedule A property was a monthly tenancy and, therefore, fifteen days' notice was enough. According to the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant, this is purely a point of law, which can be raised in the second appeal. Therefore, the question is whether under law, one notice terminating the two tenancies was valid or not.