Skip to content


Ganga Das Sil Vs. Ananda Chandra Roy and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in2Ind.Cas.548
AppellantGanga Das Sil
RespondentAnanda Chandra Roy and ors.
Excerpt:
transfer of property act (iv of 1882), section 106 - landlord and tenant--notice to quit--demand of enhanced rent or ejectment in the alternative. - 1. this case depends entirely on the sufficiency of a notice served by the landlord on a monthly tenant, the argument against its validity being that it is not sufficiently definite. the notice takes the form of a letter in which the landlord explains that he sees fit to increase the rent of the holding from rs. 23 to 30. he asks the tenant to come to an agreement with him to pay the increased rent. then he concludes by saying, otherwise i shall take steps to eject you at the expiration of this month and hence you consider this as 15 days' notice expiring with the end of this month.'2. it is argued that, since the tenant had the option of accepting the tenancy at the enhanced rent till the end of the month, the notice was alternative to another cause of action. we cannot, however, take.....
Judgment:

1. This case depends entirely on the sufficiency of a notice served by the landlord on a monthly tenant, the argument against its validity being that it is not sufficiently definite. The notice takes the form of a letter in which the landlord explains that he sees fit to increase the rent of the holding from Rs. 23 to 30. He asks the tenant to come to an agreement with him to pay the increased rent. Then he concludes by saying, otherwise I shall take steps to eject you at the expiration of this month and hence you consider this as 15 days' notice expiring with the end of this month.'

2. It is argued that, since the tenant had the option of accepting the tenancy at the enhanced rent till the end of the month, the notice was alternative to another cause of action. We cannot, however, take this view of the case, considering that the landlord in order to make himself safe intended to terminate and did terminate the existing tenancy at the end of the month. This is the obvious construction of the words, and we cannot see any room for doubt in the matter. This being our view we consider that the District Judge has misconstrued the notice in holding that it was not sufficiently definite.

3. The result is that the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court are set aside and those of the Subordinate Judge restored.

4. The respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 4 must pay to the appellant his costs in this Court and the Court below.


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