SECY OF STATE Vs. MADHU SUDAN MUKHERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise out of certain suits which were instituted by the Secretary of State for India in Council for ejecting the defendants on service of notices to quit. The suits having been dismissed by the Court below, the plaintiff, the Secretary of State for India in Council, has preferred these appeals. Except as regards one of the suits which has given rise to F.A. No. 277 of 1928 the facts of the cases are very similar. In each of these other suits the facts are the following: The defendants were in possession of their respective plots for a long series of years under annual leases. In 1914 the plaintiff introduced a form of lease designating it as a license to receive which the defendants objected but they were told that the form would make no difference and they would be allowed to hold the plots as they did before under the leases. They held under the licenses the last of which expired on 31 March 1917. On 1 June 1917, the plaintiff gave them notices calling upon them to vacate by 31 July 1917.

(2.) In the suit in which the facts are special the original tenant was one Mr. Heather who came into possession under an agreement dated 1893. He transferred his holding to one Mrs. Claudius in 1900, and she, in her turn, sold it to defendant in 1906. Up to 31 March 1914, this defendant held under successive yearly leases. For the next three years he held under the annual licenses. Notices, as in the other cases, were given to him. A further notice was given to him on 30 September 1918, calling upon him to vacate by the last day of October 1918. The suits, it may be mentioned here, were instituted on 3 May 1922, and have been dismissed on the ground that the notices given were not sufficient.

(3.) The appeals, in our opinion, should be dismissed, though not exactly for the reasons which the Subordinate Judge has given. In 1914 when the new forms of licenses were introduced the defendants objected to accept them. The Subordinate Judge held upon the oral evidence and also a letter (Ex. D) that the defendants were induced to sign the new license forms on the representation of the Agent and the Chief Engineer of the Railway that their position under the old leases would not be disturbed by their signing the new forms of licenses, and that therefore the licenses, obtained as they were under a misrepresentation, were not binding on them. They remained in occupation and continued to pay their rents up to 31 March 1917 after which no rent was accepted from them. On these facts the Subordinate Judge held that the relationship between the parties was as of tenants holding over on the expiry of yearly leases, and so Secs.106 and 116, T.P. Act, being applicable, the tenancies having originally been created for purposes of residence and for holding shops, the defendants were entitled to 15 days notice ending with a month of the tenancies. He was of opinion however that the notices that were given were not such as are required by Section 106, T.P. Act.