C.M.LODHA, J. - (1.) THE only Question calling for determination in this case is whether the notice of ejectment served by the plaintiff is valid?
(2.) THERE is no denying the fact that in the lease deed Ex - 7 there is a condition that the landlord would give one month's time to the tenant for vacating the premises in question. The objection on behalf of the appellant is that full one month's time was not granted by the notice Ex. 8 served by the plaintiff on the defendant. In support of his contention learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon D. G. Mehta v. B. D. Chudasama, AIR 3956 Bom 113. In the present case in the notice Ex. 8 it is mentioned that 'a notice of one month's duration is being written that the vacant possession of the premises may be handed over within one month and that failing that after the expiry of the duration of the notice, legal proceedings for ejectment would be taken, through Court.'
(3.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the plaintiff has demanded the possession of the premises before the expiry of one month and, therefore, the notice is bad. I am, however, not inclined to accede to this submission. The period of notice has been mentioned as one month and it has been further made clear that it is only after the expiry of the period that the plaintiff would resort to the proceedingsthrough the Court. Only an option has been given to the defendant to hand over possession within the period of notice. The Bombay case relied upon by the learned counsel is distinguishable on facts. It was found in that case that the language used by the landlord in the notice was slip -shod, so much so that the benefit of the slipshod language could not be given to the landlord. Consequently I am unable to uphold the appellant's contention in this respect.;