JEWAN SINGH AND ORS. Vs. MANDALAL AGARWALLA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question which arises for consideration in this appeal is - whether the notice to quit served on the defendants was a valid notice.

(2.) THE relevant facts are that the plaintiffs -respondents used to eject the defendants from certain lands and houses in their occupation as tenants of the plaintiffs. The case of the plaintiffs specifically was that the tenancy was a monthly one according to the English calendar, for which a rent of Rs. 75/ - p.m. was payable by the defendants. The defendants appear to have taken settlement of some adjoining lands from another person on which they set up a machinery for sawing timber and also laid out a trolley track. The plaintiffs' case is that the plaintiffs require the houses and the godowns for their own use and, therefore, they sent a registered notice to quit asking the defendants to give up possession of the premises by 31 -1 -1948. The defendants Nos. 1 to 7 were impleaded as the principal tenants and defendants 8 to 18 were impleaded as sub -tenants under those defendants.

(3.) IT has been now contended before us by the learned Advocate -General that in view of the finding of the lower Appellate Court that the tenancy was for manufacturing purposes, the notice to quit must be held to be invalid. In this connection, he relied upon Section 106, Transfer of Property Act, which lays down that