Skip to content


Fakiragouda S. Patil Vs. Parvatibai Mahadev Mahendrakar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1977Kant112; 1976(2)KarLJ452
ActsTransfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 106
AppellantFakiragouda S. Patil
RespondentParvatibai Mahadev Mahendrakar
Appellant AdvocateK.A. Swami, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateMir Masood Ali Khan, Adv.
Excerpt:
.....land petitioner cultivating the land originally as a tenant and thereafter by virtue of the registered sale deed as owner of the land - as on 1.3.1974 or immediately prior to it the land was a tenanted land, vested with the government held, even if the sale in favour of the petitioners husband is held to be invalid, originally it was tenanted land and the land was vested with the government. the land tribunal has to consider the application for grant of occupancy rights to the petitioner as he was holding the land as a tenant prior to and as on 1.3.1974. - therefore, the notice was clearly invalid under s......of the notice. it was held that the notice was invalid inasmuch as besides not ending with the month of tenancy, the landlady did not even ask to determine the tenancy. she had rather asked for the vacation of the house by the end of december 1972 and before the beginning of january 1973. the notice to quit was given on 6th december 1972 and it was served on the tenant on 11th december 1972. on that finding the learned munsiff dismissed the petition and thereafter the landlady went up in appeal before the learned district judge. on the question of notice she succeeded in that court. it was held, that clear fifteen days were given in the notice and on the basis of certain questions of law discussed by the learned appellate judge, it was held that the notice was valid and legally.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. This revision under S. 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (here in after referred to as the Act) is directed against the Judgment of the District Judge, Belgaum, reversing in appeal the judgment - of the II Addl. Munsiff, Belgaum -and thereby, remanding the - case after holding that the notice to quit served upon the tenant was valid and that the tenancy was legally determined. The remand was however made on the question of bona fide need of the landlady. The petitioner Parvatibai brought the petition under S. 21(1)(h) of the Act, against the tenant on the ground of her reasonable and bona fide requirement, it was stated in the petition that the tenancy began 'according to the English Calendar on the 1st day of the calendar month and ended by the end of the same month'. The tenant besides denying the reasonable and bona fide requirement of the landlady also contended that the notice to quit was 'illegal, invalid and did not terminate the tenancy.' The learned Munsiff found in favour of the tenant on the question as to the validity of the notice. It was held that the notice was invalid inasmuch as besides not ending with the month of tenancy, the landlady did not even ask to determine the tenancy. She had rather asked for the vacation of the house by the end of December 1972 and before the beginning of January 1973. The notice to quit was given on 6th December 1972 and it was served on the tenant on 11th December 1972. On that finding the learned Munsiff dismissed the petition and thereafter the landlady went up in appeal before the learned District Judge. On the question of notice she succeeded in that Court. It was held, that clear fifteen days were given in the notice and on the basis of certain questions of law discussed by the learned Appellate Judge, it was held that the notice was valid and legally terminated the tenancy. The case was remanded on the other plea as to the reasonable and bona fide need of the landlady. The present revision is filed by the tenant against that decision.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision Attendant Gopalvarao Devakate v. Vithalrao Marutirao reported in : AIR1975SC1111 . In that case, their Lordships considered the notice to quit given under S. 106 of the T. P. Act. The tenancy was from month to month and it started from 10th April 1946 ending a 9th day of the following month. The notice served on the tenant on 21-11-1968 purported to terminate the tenancy by the 8th December 1968. It was held that the notice-did not expire with the end of the month of the tenancy. The end of the month of the tenancy was the 9th day and not the 8th day. Thus there was no valid and legal termination of the contractual tenancy. Applying the ratio of that case, the learned Counsel submitted that as per the language used in the notice Which is to the following effect, in the instant case also the notice did not end with the month of the tenancy which was the whole anniversary of 31st December, 1972. Rather the notice required the tenant to vacate before the termination of the tenancy on 31st December 1972. The following language used in the notice may be referred to:

'I request therefore to vacate the house by the end of December, 1972 and before the beginning of January Ist, 1973.'

It means in unequivocal terms, the lady wanted the tenant to vacate before the beginning of January 1st 1973, which means before the end of 31st December, 1972. In this manner the notice did not give the tenant the whole anniversary of the day, i.e. 31st December 1972 and as such did not end with the month of the tenancy. Therefore, the notice was clearly invalid under S. 106 of the T. P ' Act. Me learned Counsel for the respondent contended that a liberal construction should be made. He argued that the notice may be held to be short by an hour or two and the Court could not give that strict interpretation. Be it as it may, the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above enjoins for a strict interpretation of he notice given under S. 106 of the T. P. Act. The legislation is obviously for the benefit of the tenant and in view of the observations made by the Supreme Court regarding notice, I am afraid no other view can be taken in the matter.

3. In this view of the case, the tenancy cannot be stated to have been validly terminated. The decision of the learned District Judge is erroneous and has got to be set aside. The petition of the landlady is to be dismissed.

4. The revision is therefore allowed and the decision of the learned District Judge is set aside while that of the learned Munsiff restored. No order as to costs.

5. Revision allowed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //