Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
In the result, the second appeal is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 100
- Transfer ofProperty Act s. 106
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Both the courts below held that the notice to quit wasproperly given and the appellant is liable to be evicted from thesuit property and decreed the suit. Hence, the second appeal.
- Para 55. Mr.S.Sounthar, learned counsel for the appellant submittedthat no proper notice to quit was given by the respondent and in thenotice given by the respondent in Ex.A1, it was not stated that thetenancy in favour of the appellant was terminated and it was onlystated that…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDate: 16.8.2011CoramThe Hon’ble Mr.Justice R.S.RAMANATHANSecond Appeal No.704 of 2011andM.P.No.1 of 2011 RajendranAppellant/Defendant vs. GovindarajanRespondent/Plaintiff For appellant : Mr.S.Sounthar For respondent : No appearance. Prayer:- Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. against thejudgment and decree dated 14.6.2010 made in A.S.No.73 of 2009 on thefile of the Principal Sub Judge, Mayiladuthurai confirming thejudgment and decree dated 26.10.2009 made in O.S.No.44 of 2009 on thefile of the Additional District Munsif, Mayiladuthurai. JUDGMENTThe unsuccessful defendant is the appellant. 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery ofpossession of the suit property from the appellant. The case of therespondent/plaintiff was that the appellant/defendant became thetenant agreeing to pay a monthly rent of Rs.500/= and the tenancy isaccording to English Calendar. The appellant/defendant did not paythe rent regularly and till January 2009, the arrears of rent payableby the appellant/defendant was Rs.5500/=. As the appellant/defendantdid not pay the rent regularly and the respondent wanted todemolish and put up a new superstructure, a notice was given on5.8.2008 requesting the appellant to hand over vacant possession ofthe building and also to pay the arrears of rent and the notice wasreceived by the appellant and a reply was issued by him on 25.8.2008denying the allegations contained in the notice. Hence, the suit wasfiled for recovery of possession. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
The appellant admitted the arrears of rent and contended thatthe respondent/landlord was not regular in collecting the rent andtherefore, there was arrears in the payment of rent and the notice toquit was not properly given.
Both the courts below held that the notice to quit wasproperly given and the appellant is liable to be evicted from thesuit property and decreed the suit. Hence, the second appeal.
Operative part
Mr.S.Sounthar, learned counsel for the appellant submittedthat no proper notice to quit was given by the respondent and in thenotice given by the respondent in Ex.A1, it was not stated that thetenancy in favour of the appellant was terminated and it was onlystated that the appellant has to vacate and hand over possession on1.9.2008 and therefore, in the absence of any specific wording in thenotice that the tenancy is terminated, there is no proper notice toquit. He also submitted that the substantial question of law thatarises for consideration in the second appeal is whether the noticeto quit was in accordance with section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. 6. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counselfor the appellant. As per section 106 of the Transfer of PropertyAct, in respect of monthly lease, fifteen days clear notice has to begiven and that was properly appreciated by the courts below and heldthat even though the word termination was not mentioned in thenotice, having regard to the wordings in the notice, directing theappellant to vacate and hand over possession by 1.9.2008, the noticewas issued as per the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and therefore, the appellant cannot challenge the noticeas not in accordance with section 106 of the Transfer of PropertyAct. According to me, proper notice to quit was given and both thecourts below have rightly held that proper notice to quit was givento the appellant and decreed the suit. Hence, I do not find anyreason to interfere with the findings of the courts below. Thesubstantial question of law raised in this second appeal is answeredagainst the appellant. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed. No costs. Theconnected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. Sd/ Asst. Registrar //True Copy// Sub. Asst. Registrarssk. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1. The Principal Sub Judge, Mayiladuthurai.2. The Additional District Munsif, Mayiladuthurai. 1 cc to Mr.S.Sounthar , Advocate, Sr.No.50944S.A.No.704 of 2011mrd(co)pmk.11.9.2011
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In the result, the second appeal is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 100; Transfer ofProperty Act — s. 106.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.