TMI Blog1975 (4) TMI 142X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent. The latter gave a notice purporting to terminate the former s tenancy and thereafter filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) and (h) of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961-hereinafter referred to as the Act, for his eviction from the suit premises consisting of two shops. The appellant resisted the application for eviction on several grounds. The Trial Court dismissed it but on appeal by the landlord the District Judge allowed the application for eviction. The tenant filed an application in revision under Section 50 of the Act in the Karnataka High Court. The High Court dismissed the revision application. Hence this appeal. 2. The issue as to the appellant's liability to be evicted on the ground mentioned in Clause (a) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant urged three points in support of this appeal: (1) That the findings of the lower Appellate Court and the High Court in regard to the reasonable and bonafide requirement of the suit premises for occupation by the landlord are vitiated in law. (2) The finding on the question of comparative hardship of the landlord and the tenant has been recorded by committing errors of law. (3) That the notice terminating the tenancy was invalid because the lease was a yearly one being for a manufacturing purpose and even if the tenancy be a monthly one, the notice was not in accordance with law . 5. Mr. Y. V. Chitaley controverted the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and added in the alternative that the appellant was a sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hink that there are such pressing grounds in this case which would justify our upsetting the Views of the High Court confirming those of the lower Appellate Court. It is not necessary to discuss the first two points urged on behalf of the petitioner in any detail and we reject them on the short ground mentioned above. 7. Coming to the question of notice we would like to 'state at the outset that on the basis of the evidence in the case the Appellate court took the view that the lease was not for a manufacturing purpose. The lease was for one year which expired on 9-4-1946. The tenant held over under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act. Ext. P-12 did not mention the purpose of the lease. The learned District Judge was of the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Property Act in computing the period of one year the date of commencing i.e. the 9 day of April, 1945 had to be excluded. The one year's tenancy ended on the 9 April, 1946. It is clearly mentioned to be so in Ext. P-12 in these words: I shall make use and enjoyment of the said shops as a tenant for one year and deliver your shops to you without objections on 9-4-1946. By holding over the tenancy from month-to-month started front the 10 April, 1946 ending on the 9th day of the following month. This view finds support from the Rent Receipts Ext. D-1 and D-I(a). The evidence on behalf of the respondent that there was a mistake in those receipts is not correct as the said receipts are in conformity with Ext. P-12. On the other han ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... monthly tenancy began on the 2nd of the month ending on the 1st and so the notice was held to be valid. 12. We do not think that the alternative argument put forward by Mr. Chitaley that no notice was necessary in this case is correct. The appellant was a contractual tenant who would have become a statutory tenant within the meaning of Clause (r) of Section 2 of the Act if he would have continued in. possession after the termination of the tenancy in his favour. Otherwise not. Without termination of the contractual tenancy by a valid notice or other mode set out in Section 111 T. P. Act it was not open to the landlord to treat the appellant as a statutory tenant and seek his eviction without service of a notice to quit. 13. In suppor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
