MAHOMEDALLY EBRAHIMJI LEHERI Vs. HAJI ABDULLA KAZIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is clearly proved here that the plaintiff is the owner of a building known as Leheri Mansion in Sandhurst Road and that the defendant is a monthly tenant of a portion of that property. Under the decree of March 24, 1924, in Suit No. 4017 of 1923, the standard rent of that property has been fixed at Rs. 530 per mensem, I find as a fact that the monthly tenancy runs from the first day of each month to the last day of each month according to the English dates.

(2.) On July 31, 1924, the attorneys for the plaintiff gave the defendant notice to quit in the following terms so far as material:- We have to call upon you to quit and deliver quiet and peaceful possession of the portion ...occupied by you for the purposes of your hotel as our client's monthly tenant at the end of next month (i. e. August 31, 1924). In default our client will file an ejectment suit against you to recover possession of the said premises at your risk as to costs, which please note

(3.) The point is whether a notice to quit on the last day of the month, viz., August 31, 1924, is invalid inasmuch as the tenancy would not expire until the end of the day constituting August 31, 1924. Counsel has pointed out that under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, a notice to quit may be by a notice expiring with the end of a month of the tenancy, in the absence of any contract or local usage to the contrary. In the present ease, I think, having regard to what is said in Bhojabhai V/s. Hayem Samuel,(1898) I. L. R. 22 Bom. 754 hat local custom probably requires a month's notice in the case of property in Bombay like the property in the present case, and that accordingly the fifteen days notice mentioned in Section 106 would be insufficient.