Decided on January 23,1970

G.M. Ali Appellant
Mrs. M. Rosary Ammal Respondents


T. Ramaprasada Rao, J. - (1.) IN this civil revision petition an interesting question arises, whether a notice of determination of tenancy is necessary in the case of a tenant who holds over, and, if it is necessary, whether such a notice should conformably be in terms agreed to between the landlord and the tenant prior to the commencement of such holding over by the tenant. Under a tenancy agreement Exhibit P -1, dated 24th November, 1954, the petitioner was let into possession of premises No. 100, Broadway, Madras. Inter alia the agreement provided that the tenancy shall be in accordance with the English calendar month and that the petitioner shall use the premises only for his own purposes and shall not sublet or assign the whole or any portion thereof. Clause 6 of the agreement runs as follows: The lessee agrees to take on lease the premises for a period of one year commencing from 1st December, 1954 and is terminable on a month's notice on either side on the expiry of this lease. After the period of the tenancy was over the petitioner was holding over as a month to month tenant. In the year 1965, the respondent filed an application under Sections 10(ii)(b) and 10(3)(a)(i) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, for evicting the petitioner from the premises on the grounds of using the premises for a purpose other than that for which it was let out and also on the ground that it was required for her own use and occupation. On the two grounds the Courts below found that the tenant used the premises for a purpose other than that for which it was leased out without the written consent of the petitioner and that in any event the landlady required the premises for her own use and occupation and that such a requirement was bona fide. An appeal to the appellate authority was unsuccessful. The present revision has been filed against the said order.
(2.) THE question whether the notice of determination of tenancy was in order or not, was not seriously argued in the Courts below as by then the Full Bench decision in Raval & Co. and Anr. v. K.G. Ramachandran (Minor) and Ors., was ruling the day. After filing the civil revision petition, the petitioner filed C.M.P. No. 9373 of 1967 and prayed for leave to raise the following additional ground: The lower appellate Court ought to have dismissed the appeal inasmuch as the respondent had not admittedly terminated appellant's tenancy by a notice as required under the Transfer of Property Act. This petition was posted along with this civil revision petition and when it came up for hearing finally before me, I allowed the same to be raised as apparently the petitioner was prompted to raise the additional ground in view of later pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Manujendra Dutt v. P.P. Roy Chowdhury : [1967] 1 SCR 475 . C.M.P. No. 9373 of 1967 is therefore allowed. Regarding the merits arising in the subject -matter of the civil revision petition, I am unable to interfere as both the Courts concurrently found that the petitioner was using the premises for a purpose other than that for which it was let, and in any event the premises was required bona fide for the personal occupation of the landlady.
(3.) THE question however is whether the proceedings initiated by the landlady under the provisions of Madras Act (XVIII of 1960) without issuing a notice of determination of tenancy in accordance with the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, is valid and regular and whether the Courts below had the jurisdiction to entertain the same if such a notice of determination is not proper, regular and legal in the eye of law.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.