Skip to content


Susil Chunder Neogy and ors. Vs. Birendrajit Shah - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1934Cal837,153Ind.Cas.673
AppellantSusil Chunder Neogy and ors.
RespondentBirendrajit Shah
Cases Referred and Wride v. Dyer
Excerpt:
- .....to the decision of the judicial committee in benoy krishna das v. salsiccioni, 1932 pc 279 the tenancy expired at midnight on 1st april 1921. the defendants held over as monthly tenants. holding over as monthly tenants each month of their tenancy expired at midnight on the 1st of the succeeding month. consequently a notice to quit expiring with the last day of a month is a bad notice. in these circumstances there is no necessity to consider the form of the notice or the other defence taken whether payment under the order of 6th december last of rs. 330-8-3 month by month amounted to a waiver. but, quite shortly, though without deciding the case on those grounds, i should say that the notice to quit was good according to the decisions in doe v. culliford, 4 d and r 248 and wride v......
Judgment:

Buckland, J.

1. This is a suit for ejectment. On 24th September 1932 plaintiff gave notice in writing to the defendant to quit and vacate the premises in, suit by 31st October 1932. The premises had been let to the defendant for a term of three years from 1st April 1918. According to the decision of the Judicial Committee in Benoy Krishna Das v. Salsiccioni, 1932 PC 279 the tenancy expired at midnight on 1st April 1921. The defendants held over as monthly tenants. Holding over as monthly tenants each month of their tenancy expired at midnight on the 1st of the succeeding month. Consequently a notice to quit expiring with the last day of a month is a bad notice. In these circumstances there is no necessity to consider the form of the notice or the other defence taken whether payment under the order of 6th December last of Rs. 330-8-3 month by month amounted to a waiver. But, quite shortly, though without deciding the case on those grounds, I should say that the notice to quit was good according to the decisions in Doe v. Culliford, 4 D and R 248 and Wride v. Dyer, (1900) 1 QB 23 and that the plaintiff cannot be prejudiced by payments made under an order made by consent as though they were payments of rent out of Court. I cannot conceive that it was ever intended thereby in effect to nullify the whole of the plaintiff's proceedings. But for reasons already stated the suit will be dismissed with costs.


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