Skip to content


Smt. Ram Kali Vs. Sia Ram and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberRevision Appln. No. 49 (S) of 1976
Judge
Reported inAIR1978All546
ActsTransfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 106; Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1904 - Sections 4(28)
AppellantSmt. Ram Kali
RespondentSia Ram and ors.
Appellant AdvocateS. Mirza, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateP.C. Srimal, Adv.
DispositionApplication dismissed
Excerpt:
tenancy - notice period - section 106 of transfer of property act, 1882 - notice issued to the tenant to evacuate within one month of notice - for february month one month period would mean 28 days - notice period is valid. - - 3. the sole question considered by the learned judge while disposing of the second appeal was that the notice served under section 106 of the transfer of property act was bad as it did not give one month's notice and, therefore, the orders passed by the subordinate courts were not correct. 4. the result is that in view of the observation made above the review application as well as the application for setting aside ex parte decree fail and are accordingly dismissed......courts were not correct. we have gone through the application for setting aside of the ex parte decree and we are constrained to observe that no sufficient cause has been shown in the said application supported by affidavit to set aside the ex parte order. while considering the review application we have gone into the merits of the case and we are of the view after examination of the facts and hearing the learned counsel for the parties that no case is made out for interference. in the instant case a notice under section 106 of the transfer of property act was served on 8-2-1968. in the notice it was directed that the appellants i.e. the present opposite parties were to quit the land within one month of the date of service of the notice. the word 'month' has been defined in the.....
Judgment:

D.N. Jha, J.

1. Srimati Ram Kali has filed this review application and has also preferred an application for setting aside the ex parte order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court dated 13-4-1976.

2. We have gone through the order passed by the learned single Judge in Second Appeal No. 355 of 1972. The appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Kheri, dated 20-7-1972 and the decree dated 31-8-1971 were set aside. Since the learned Judge has retired the matter has come up before this Bench.

3. The sole question considered by the learned Judge while disposing of the second appeal was that the notice served under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was bad as it did not give one month's notice and, therefore, the orders passed by the subordinate courts were not correct. We have gone through the application for setting aside of the ex parte decree and we are constrained to observe that no sufficient cause has been shown in the said application supported by affidavit to set aside the ex parte order. While considering the review application we have gone into the merits of the case and we are of the view after examination of the facts and hearing the learned counsel for the parties that no case is made out for interference. In the instant case a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was served on 8-2-1968. In the notice it was directed that the appellants i.e. the present opposite parties were to quit the land within one month of the date of service of the notice. The word 'month' has been defined in the U. P. General Clauses Act as :--

'Month' shall mean a month reckoned according to the British Calendar.'

It, therefore, follows that the month commences from the first and ends with last day of the month i.e. in the instant case the month would commence from the 8th of February and would finish on the 7th of March, 1968. Therefore, the period would he less than 30 days as envisaged under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. It appears that it was lost sight of that the notice was being served in the month of February and not any other month. The learned counsel arued that one month would envisage 30 days. We have already discussed the facts regarding the notice and we do not think that there is any substance in this submission of the learned counsel that in the instant case one month would mean 30 days as the notice had been given in the month of February. The review petition therefore, in our opinion suffers from lack of substance as there is no apparent error in the order passed by the learned single Judge.

4. The result is that in view of the observation made above the review application as well as the application for setting aside ex parte decree fail and are accordingly dismissed. We make no order as to costs.


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