(1.) These are two connected appeals. Mt. Miran was the owner of a stone quarry. On 26 March 1927, she gave a lease of it to Kundan Lal and Moti Lal. The lease was given for a period of two years. The lessees agreed to pay Rs. 70 yearly as rent. During the continuance of the lease, Moti Lal assigned his rights in it to Kundan Lal. Mt. Miran died. Before the expiry of the period of two years, Deep Chand, the heir of Mt. Miran gave a notice to Kundan Lal plaintiff to quit. Kundan Lal did not comply with this demand. The result of the dispute was that two suits were instituted, one by Kundan Lal and other by Deep Chand. Kundan Lal in his suit contended that the lease given to him by Mt. Miran was for an indefinite period and that under its terms, he was entitled to keep the quarry in his possession for as long as he liked on payment of Rs. 70 per annum. He complained that Deep Chand was wrongfully interfering with his (Kundan Lal s) enjoyment of the lease. He therefore asked that a decree be granted to him declaring that he (Kundan Lal) was in possession of the land in suit and that Deep Chand had no right to interfere in any manner. Deep Chand instituted a suit against Kundan Lal. He alleged that the lease in favour of Kundan Lal was for a period of two years, that before the expiry of the lease notice to quit had been given to him, that he did not give up possession over the property leased and was therefore in wrongful possession of the same. Deep Chand asked for possession and damages.
(2.) Two suits were tried together. The learned Subordinate Judge, who tried them, came to the conclusion, that the plea of Kundan Lal that he, under the terms of the lease, was entitled to hold possession of the leased property for as long as he liked was not made out. He found it established that the lease which Mt. Miran had given to Kundan Lal was for a period of two years only. Kundan Lal had taken a plea that having regard to the provisions of Section 106, T.P. Act, he was entitled to six months notice and so, the notice given to him by Deep Chand was bad and that therefore he was entitled to remain in possession of the leased property even after the expiry of the term of the lease. The Court below found that only 15 days notice was necessary. The suit of Kundan Lal was dismissed, while the suit which Deep Chand had instituted against Kundan Lal for possession and damages was decreed. Kundan Lal has preferred these two appeals in both the cases.
(3.) The finding of the learned Subordinate Judge that the lease in favour of Kundan Lal was for a period of two years only has not been challenged before us by the learned Counsel who appeared for Kundan Lal appellant. The only question which he has raised in this Court is that the notice which Deep Chand gave to Kundan Lal asking him to quit the leased property on the expiry of the period of two years was not a valid notice because of the iprovisions of Section 106, T.P. Act, and therefore a decree for ejectment should hot have been passed. We proceed to consider this question. The lease in favour of Kundan Lal was for a period of two years. The date of the lease is 26 March 1927. It terminated on 25 March 1929. On 31 January 1929, Deep Chand gave a notice to Kundan Lal asking him to give up possession by 26 March 1929. The contention of the learned Counsel for Kundan Lal is that in view of the provisions of Section 106, T.P. Act, Kundan Lal was entitled to a notice of six months. Section 106, T.P. Act runs as follows: In the absence of a contract or local law or visage to the contrary, a lease of immovable property for agricultural or manufacturing purposes shall be deemed to be a lease from year to year, terminable, on the part of either lessor or lessee, by six months notice expiring with the end of a year of the tenancy ; and a lease of immovable property for any other purpose shall be deemed to be a lease from month to month, terminable, on the part of either lessor or lessee, by 15 days notice expiring with the end of the month of the tenancy....