Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.35 seconds)The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001
Section 3 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 39 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Abdul Jalil vs Haji Abdul Jalil on 29 April, 1974
The law on this point has been considered in some detail by a Division Bench of this Court in Abdul Jalil v. Haji Abdul Jalil (AIR 1974 All 402). None of the illustrations (A) to (G) of the varying language employed in the notices of this kind that were considered by the Division Bench of this Court in that case fit in with the language employed in the notice in question in the present case. The peculiar feature of the notice in question in the present case is that it terminates the tenancy with effect from 12th August, 1966, the notice having been given on 12th July, 1966. It is in evidence that the notice was served on 14th July, 1966. It is in every sense of the terms a 'lame' and 'inaccurate' notice. Nevertheless, Ut Res Magis Valeat Quam Pereat, one must try and make out the intention of the noticegiver as best as it could be called out from the language employed rather than to find fault with it. A notice has to be construed liberally and not too strictly.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Pahlad Das vs Ganga Saran And Anr. on 26 July, 1957
Indeed, it was held by a Division Bench of this Court in Pahlad Das v. Ganga Saran (AIR 1958 All 774) that even after the dismissal of a suit on some technical ground such as a defective notice, the permission granted under Section 3 (1) of U. P. Act No. III of 1947 could be availed of for filing a second suit against the same tenant after giving a fresh notice. That would not have been possible if the permission had constituted the cause of action for the suit, for with the dismissal of a suit, a fresh suit cannot be filed on the same cause of action except with the leave of the Court. The case of default under clause (a) of Section 'A (1) of U. P. Act No. III of 1947, cannot stand on any higher footing.
Smt. Ram Kali vs Sia Ram And Ors. on 24 May, 1978
22. The requirement of the law is, vide Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, that such a notice must be
in writing duly signed by the landlord and the notice must be a 30 days' notice, for the law is that "a lease of immoveable property for any other purpose shall be deemed to be a lease from month to month terminable on the part of either lessor or lessee, by 33 days' notice" as amended in Uttar Pradesh. The lease, or the tenancy is terminable 'by 30 days' notice'. The notice must be a notice of 30 days clear, between the date on which it is served and the date on which the tenancy is terminated. It has been held in some cases that a month's notice where the month is of 31 days is as good as a 30 days' notice, but where the month is of less than 30 days, as in the case of February, the notice is bad. See for instance Smt. Ram Kali v. Sia Ram (AIR 1978 All 546). The head note of the report of that case does not bring out the decision correctly, when it says that the "notice in the instant case asking the tenant to quit within one month i.e. within less than 30 days held not bad". The notice given in that case was served on 8th February, 1968 and it required the tenant to quit within one month of the date of the service of the notice. The Bench held that a month means a month reckoned according to the British Calendar, and the month commences from the first and ends with last day of the month and that, therefore, in that case the month could commence from 8th February and end on 7th March, 1968. Consequently the Bench held that the period given by the notice was less than 30 days as envisaged by Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, and it appears that the fact that the notice was being given in the month of February was lost sight of when it was given. The argument of the learned counsel that one month meant 30 days was rejected. From a reading of the whole judgment in that case which was given on a review petition, it appears that the tenant's appeal had been allowed by a learned single Judge of this Court and the review petition by the landlord was directed against that judgment. The review petition was dismissed. It follows that the notice was held to be bad by the learned single Judge who allowed the tenant's appeal and consequently by the Bench which confirmed that judgment by dismissing the review petition.
Pahlad Das vs Ganga Saran And Ors. on 7 September, 1951
24. But the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent urged on the basis of three cases relied upon by the lower appellate court in support of its finding on this point that the giving of the option to the defendant to vacate the shop in suit on the date on which he thought the tenancy terminated made the notice valid. These three cases are: (1) Pahlad Das v. Ganga Saran (1952 All LJ 24): (AIR 1952 All 32); (2) Ganga Prasad v. Prem Kumar Kohli (AIR 1949 All 173) and (3) Bhagwan Sri Krishnaji Maharaj Virajman Mandir, Khanpur v. Chhuttan Lal (AIR 1963 All 54). All the three cases were of notices given when the Transfer of Property Act as it stood before its amendment in Uttar Pradesh by U. P. Act No. XXIV of 1954. It was necessary under the unamended provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act that a notice for terminating a tenancy from month to month must be a 15 days' notice expiring with the end of the month of the tenancy. It was in that context said in all the three cases referred to by the lower appellate court, and relied upon by the learned counsel, that the statement in the notice that the tenancy was terminated with effect from the specified date of the end of the month of the tenancy, or in the alternative from such date as on which the tenant thought it ended in fact, was sufficient to uphold the validity of the notice in case the tenant disputed the exact date of the end of the month of the tenancy as specified by the landlord. That consideration is not involved in the present case. The notice has to be a notice of not less than 30
days in order to bring about a termination of a month to month tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, as it now stands in Uttar Pradesh after the amendment. The notice given by the plaintiff-respondent in the present case was specifically a notice of less than 30 days as demonstrated above. The statement that the tenant could vacate the shop in suit on the date specified in the notice, that is. 12th August, 1966 (which was less than 30 days after the service of the notice) or within such period as may be considered by the defendant-appellant to be the legal limitation for vacating the shop, could not in my view be treated to be sufficient for upholding the notice as valid under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. These words only gave the defendant-appellant an option to vacate the shop in suit on 12th August, 1966 which was the date on which the plaintiff-respondent had purported to terminate the tenancy, or to vacate it by such date as the tenant thought was the last day of the legal limitation for vacating the house. In law a tenant was not under any obligation to vacate the house unless the tenancy was terminated by a proper notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, and that, the notice failed to achieve, in spite of all the intentions of the notice-giver, by stating that the tenancy was terminated 'from 12th August, 1966'.