BHARGAVA, J. - (1.) THIS is a second appeal by the defendants in a suit for ejectment of a shop instituted in the town of Ganganagar.
(2.) UNDER an oral agreement dated Asarh Badi 8 Smt. 2014 the shop was given on lease for a period of one year to appellant No. 2 for the purposes of carrying on the business of appellant No. 1 known as firm J. P. Sharma and Sons of Shri Ganganagar at an annual rental of Rs. 2200/ -. Originally the suit was filed against appellant No. 2 only but as his plea was that firm J. P. Sharma and Sons were the actual lessees of the shop appellant No. 2 was also impleaded as a defendant in the case. The suit for ejectment was filed because the defendant had committed defaults in the payment of rent. There is no dispute that after the expiry of one year the tenancy continued from month to month. The suit for ejectment was dismissed by the trial court but on appeal the learned District Judge passed a decree for ejectment also. The controversy in this appeal centres round the validity of notice to quit. The objection is that the notice to quit under sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was not served on the firm which was the tenant of the shop but it was addressed to J. P. Sharma appellant No. 2. The notice Ex. 7 has been addressed in this manner: - "to Shri Jyoti Prasad Sharma C/o Firm J. P. Sharma and Sons, 52, Grain Market, Ganganagar. " It is contended that under sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act notice must be given to the party who is intended to be bound by it and should be served in the manner indicated by this section, The notice addressed to Shri J. P. Sharma therefore, cannot bind the firm. Reliance is placed in this connection on a bench decision of the Calcutta High Court in Bejoy Chand Mahatab Vs. Kali Prasanna Seal (1 ). On behalf of the respondent it was urged that in case of a partnership firm a partner is the agent of the firm and notice to one partner of the firm is a notice to the firm. In the present case it is urged that the notice to quit was handed over by Shri J. P. Sharma to the firm, was acknowledged by them and its reply was sent by the firm which shows that notice was received by the firm and they treated the notice Ex. 7 as notice to quit. Now in the case of a partner-ship firm a partner is the agent of the firm. Similarly, under sec. 24 of the Partnership Act "notice to a partner who habitually acts in the business of the firm of any matter relating to the affairs of the firm operates as notice to the firm, except in the case of a fraud on the firm committed by or with consent of that partner. " The rule of law contained in sec. 24 is based on the assumption that a partner who is the agent of the firm when he gets a notice does his duty to communicate the same atonce to his principal i. e. , the firm and that is why that notice is treated as notice to the firm. It cannot be denied that a notice to quit the premises where the firm carries on its business relates to the affairs of the firm. Any change in the place of business causes a serious dislocation of the business of the firm. It is therefore, a matter of vital concern to all the partners that the business should continue at its established place. Therefore, granting that the notice to quit should have been addressed to the firm, the notice served in the present case upon a partner will be considered a sufficient notice to the firm. It is not disputed that the shop was rented out to J. P. Sharma for carrying on the business of the firm and he had represented it at the time of taking lease of the shop from the plaintiffs. It is also not disputed that J. P. Sharma habitually acted in the business of the firm. A perusal of the notice shows that the address of Shri J. P. Sharma noted in the notice is the same where the business of the firm is carried on. Even if the notice had been addressed to the firm it would have gone to the same place and would have been accepted either by some partner of the firm or by its clerk or servant and the reply would have also been given by any of the partners. I do not see any difference in a case where the notice is addressed to the firm and then it is dealt with by any of the partners and a case where it is addressed to a managing partner who communicates it to the firm and its reply is sent by the firm. In either case the notice would be a valid one. A case directly in point was cited by the learned counsel for the respondents in Tulsiram Shaw Vs. R. C. Pal Ltd. (2) where it was held that: - "each case must be taken by its own and decision on the meaning of a notice to quit in one context does not afford much guidance for interpretatien of a notice in different words in a different context. It is necessary to look at the intention of the landlord, and when language is used which leaves the effect of the notice open to doubt, the rule of construction is to make it sensible and not insensible. Where instead of addressing the quit notice to a limited company which was the tenant it was addressed to a per son who was the managing director himself and the name of the company was written after the name of the manging director with a 'limited' appended after the name, and the notice was treated by the addressee and the company as a notice to the company itself. That the notice was valid notice to the tenant. " The learned Judge considered several English decisions on the point particularly the case of Hawtrey Vs. Beaufront Ltd. , (3) where Croom Johnson J, reviewed all the leading authorities on the point. In that case too the point before the Court was that a notice to quit was addressed to the Director of a company and not to the company tenant itself. The following observations made in that case are relevant for the decision of this case : - "a limited company must, of course, act through agents. If it had been addressed to Beaufront Ltd. , the document would still have to be delivered to an agent or sent through the post to the registered office of the company, where it would have been dealt with by an agent I think that within the rule referred to in Hanvs. Claviningy by Lord Greene M. R. in the case I have mentioned, that in a case of ambiguity the Court will favour the reading of the docu ment in such a way as to give it valitity, I ought to construe this notice as a notice to terminate the tenancy of the limited company. . . . . . It was obviously so treated by the defendants' solicitors They knew all about it. " The learned Judge has also quoted Foa on Landlord and Tenant, 6th Edn. , page 673 where the author says: - "a notice to a corporation should be addressed to the corporation - An omission, however, to address a notice to quit is cured if notice is proved to have been delivered to the proper person. " In the present case also as noted earlier that the notice was addressed to Shri J. P. Sharma, was acknowledged by the appellant firm and its reply was sent through their advocate. In Dwarka Prasad Vs. Central Talkies, Collector gang Kanpur, (4) a notice was issued to Central Talkies and to the Central Talkies Limited and was not therefore, properly addressed. It was held that "the defendant was not prejudiced because he accepted that notice and even replied to it. " Therefore having regard to the provisions of the Partnership Act contained in sec. 18 and 24 where a notice addressed to a managing partner of a tenant firm and is treacted by the latter as a notice to quit and is acknowledged by them, it will be a valid notice to quit] under sec. 106 of the Transfer of property Act so as to determine the tenancy. The case relied upon by the appellants does not lay down any opposite view and is distinguishable. This appeal has therefore, no force and is hereby rejected with costs. Learned counsel for the appellants prays for leave to appeal. Leave is granted. . ;