MOTI LAL Vs. POORANCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a landlords' second appeal in a suit for eviction, which was dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge Ajmer in disagreement with the trial court which had decreed the suit.

(2.) THE only question which arises for determination in this appeal is whether the notice of ejectment given by the landlords to the respondent tenant was good in law. It is necessary to state just a few facts in order to appreciate this controversy. It is admitted that the rent-note which was the basis of the suit, Ext 3, (or Ex. A-6) was dated tile 8th August, 1962. It is further admitted that the tenancy commenced from the 1st August, 1952. The appellants landlords gave a notice of ejectment Ex. 4 on the 27th June, 1954, whereby they asked the respondent to "vacate the premises by midnight of 31st July 1954/1st August 1954, when the next month's tenancy would terminate. " The respondent gave a reply to the aforesaid notice, Ex. A-3, on the 10th July 1954, wherein, it may be incidentally stated, no question as to the invalidity of the notice was raised. Eventually, the landlords filed a suit, out of which the present appeal arises, on the 3rd August, 1954, in the court of the Sub-Judge, First Class, Ajmer. The trial court held that the notice of ejectment was good inasmuch as the landlords had mentioned both days namely the 81st July and the 1st August 1954, in their notice as being the point of time when the next following month's tenancy was to terminate. On appeal, the learned Senior Civil Judge put a narrower meaning on the notice holding that what was really, meant by the expression "mid-night of 31st July 1954''/1st August 1954, was that according to the landlords, the tenancy was to terminate on the mid-night between the 31st July and 1st August, 1954. In that view of the matter, the learned Judge concluded, reading the notice in the light of the provisions contained in Section 110 of the Transfer of Property Act, that the landlords had virtually asked the tenant to vacate the premises twentyfour hours before the actual termination of the tenancy and dismissed the suit on the ground of invalidity of the notice. The present appeal has been filed by the landlords, from that judgment and decree.

(3.) THE only question, as already stated, which in these circumstances arises is as to whether the notice of ejectment Ex. 4 was a good notice in law or, putting it in somewhat different language, the question is which of the two interpretations put on the notice by the two courts below is correct