AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Adami, J.—This is an application for review by me of my Judgment passed in revision in the case of a Small Cause Court suit in which the present petitioner had sought to recover the rent for February 1921 in respect of a house which the opposite party had agreed to take on lease for a period of three years.
Several grounds are mentioned in the petition but the only one which can possibly be considered in review is that which alleges that on the face of the judgment I have been mistaken in computing the number of days between the receipt of a notice to quit by the petitioner and the last day of the month.
In my judgment I have found that a registered notice posted on the 15th of the month and received on the 17th was sufficient where the month consisted of 31 days. It is pointed out that there must be 15 clear days notice and in the present case I was wrong in my calculation in finding that there were 15 days between the receipt and the end of the month. The decisions in Gobinda Chandra Saha v. Dwarka Nath Pakla (1914) 20 C.L.J. 455 and in Sidebotham v. Holland (1895) 1 Queen''s Bench 378 have been relied on to show that the notice was not sufficient.
It seems to me however that this is not a case in which I should grant the application : there was not a mistake in calculation, the mistake if any was in holding that fifteen days inclusive of the first day were sufficient. I may have been wrong in this but that would be an error not in calculation but in law. There are two points also which I take into consideration, one is that the notice was posted on the 15th and should have reached the petitioner on the 16th in the ordinary course and another is that about the 14th of the month the petitioners had dispossessed the opposite party''s mali. Also the subject of insufficiency of notice was not raised in the pleadings of he petitioner. I cannot interfere. The application is rejected.
Hearing fee, three gold mohurs.