SURINDER KUMAR CHADHA Vs. AJAY PAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT , a tenant in premises in dispute i. e. shop-cum-office No. 1019, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, and running Royal Restaurant therein as Proprietor thereof, was ordered to be ejected in a suit for eviction brought against him by respondents vide orders dated February 25, 1980 passed by Subordinate Judge 1st Class. Chandigarh. This order of eviction was confirmed in an appeal preferred by him by Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, on July 20, 1993.

(2.) IN this second appeal preferred by the tenants, it is strenuously urged on his behalf by his counsel Shri M. L. Sarin. learned Senior Advocate. that notice to quit was given to the tenant on January 19, 1977 wheras the present suit was filed on February 15, 1977. As per provisions contained in Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act it was necessary for respondents to give 15 days clear notice ending with the tenancy month and inasmuch the suit was instituted on February 15, 1977 before the end of the tenancy month i. e. January 31, 1977, notice was invalid. For his aforesaid contention, learned counsel relies on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Dattonpant Gopalwarao Dewakate v. Vibhabrao Maruthirao Janagaval, 1975 RCJ, 344. The facts of the ease aforesaid reveal that after the contractual period of tenancy had expired and the tenant was holding over the property, by virtue of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. his tenancy resulted into a month to month tenancy terminable by 15 days notice ending with the tenancy month given Under Section 106 of the said act. The facts of the said case show that the requisite period of 15 days was given but the defect in the notice was that it did not expire with the end of the tenancy month. That being so, it was held that there was no valid notice to terminate the contractual tenancy.

(3.) FROM the receipts. Ex. DX and Dy that were placed on the records of the first Appellate Court by filing an application seeking additional evidence, it is further argued that the terms and conditions of the tenancy clearly incorporated that one English calendar month notice had to be served in case the tenant was to vacate the premises and that being so, if the landlord was also to serve a notice for eviction of the tenant. the same had also to be of one month period. The Appellate Court rightly dealt with the matter by observing that it was not incorporated in the receipts, Ex. DX and DY that the landlord would be under an obligation to give one month notice before terminating the tenancy and that there was an admission by the tenant that the tenancy was from month to month and, therefore, in the absence of any contract to the contrary, a lease from one month to month would be terminable by giving fifteen days notice.