Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.23 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Anantam Veeraju And Ors. vs Valluri Venkayya Alias Venkamma (Died) ... on 6 September, 1957
11. Reading of the above provision makes it clear that it is not that a document can be called at the appellate stage at the instance of a party only.The Court in order to do substantial justice can also call for a document. Rule 27(1)(b) empowers the Court to call for a document without the aid of any party.Following decisions support over view: (i) Anantam
Veeraju & Ors. Vs. Valluri Venkayya alias Venkamma & Anr. , (ii) Bela Singh V. Chatra reported in Vol.98 (1990) Punjab Law Reporter page 382 and (iii) 1987 Punjab Law Journal page 117. The opinion expressed in these cases is that the appellate court could call for additional documents while hearing and deciding the main appeal.Appellate Court should not reject receipt of a document on the ground that it had not been produced earlier when it was possible to do so as the same would aid in pronouncing the judgment and just disposal of the appeal.Moreover, to remove the cloud of doubt over the case particularly where the evidence has a direct and important bearing on the main issue and the interest of justice clearly rendered it imperative that it be allowed to be brought on
record then such a document can be brought on record. Keeping the above principle in view we had allowed respondent to place letter dated 2nd February,1996 on record.
Alphanso Pinto vs Thukru Hengsu And Anr. on 20 February, 1953
To the same effect are the observations of the Madras High Court in the case of Alphanso Pinto, Vs. Thukru Hengsu wherein it was held that if a notice calls upon the tenant to quit and prescribe time of giving up possession, the notice is valid even though the particulars as regards tenancy are not accurately set out.Allahabad High Court as well as Nagpur High
Court in the case of Ghasi Ram Vs.Chaubey Mitra Sen , and Gayaprasad Ganpat Lal Vs. S.S. Munnilal Narayan Prasad, reported in AIR 1952 Nagpur 101 respectively held that a notice to quit need not be worded with accuracy where a monthly tenancy commences from 1st of each month. The notice is not invalid because the tenant has asked to vacate not by the end of the month but by the 1st of next month.The only
requirement which is to be looked into under Section 106 is that it must be
15 days clear notice terminating the tenancy with the end of the tenancy month.
Bhagabandas Agarwalla vs Bhagwandas Kanu & Ors on 25 February, 1977
It is settled law that a notice to quit must be construed not with a desire to find fault in it, which would render it defective, but it must be construed ut res magis valeat quam pereat as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagabandas Agrawalla Vs. Bhagwandas Kanu &Ors. . Notice must be construed liberally. At the same time we have to keep in mind that it should not infringe the essential ingredients of section 106 of the T.P.Act. Even otherwise a tenant holding under a rent note which is inadmissible, as in the present case, for want of registration, is a tenant at Will and no notice is necessary to determine the tenancy. A demand for possession is sufficient which in this case was made vide letter dated 7th May,1996. The receipt of the letter dated 7th May,1996 being admitted and receipt of letterdated2nd February,1996 having not been denied the combined reading of these two clearly brings out the fact that tenancy of the appellant was terminated w.e.f. 30th June,1996. The intention not to renew the tenancy was communicated well in advance on 2nd February,1996.Even otherwise no material had been placed on record by the appellant wherefrom it could be inferred that tenancy was renewed after 30th June,1996. The respondent vide notice dated 7th May,1996 which was in continuation to respondent's earlier letter dated 2nd February,1996 whereby tenancy was terminated called upon the appellant to handover vacant possession of the tenanted premises by or before 8th July,1996. The contention of the appellant that the tenancy was not terminated by a valid notice merits rejection.Section 106 of the T.P.Act envisages the termination of monthly
tenancy with the end of the month.From the facts discussed above it is apparent that the tenancy in this case was terminated with the end of the tenancy month.
The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
Sita Ram vs Moti Lal And Ors. on 11 July, 1975
Allahabad High Court in the case of Sita Ram Vs. Moti Lal case, held that notice requiring the tenant to vacate and to give possession on the expiry of 30 days after receipt of the notice could not be called a defective notice.
1