AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Kailasam J.
The tenant under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (Act 18 of 1960) is the petitioner. The question that is raised is that there
has been no notice terminating the tenancy either under S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act or under S. 111 (g) of the said Act. The notice that
was issued by the landlord is Ex. P. 14, which states that the tenant had taken on lease door No. 30/6 on a monthly rent of Rs. 2 but had failed to
pay rent and that there is an arrear of Rs. 93. By the notice, the tenant was called upon within three days time to pay the arrears of rent, falling
which, it is stated that action would be taken to recover the arrears of rent. The tenant was also called upon to vacate the building on the 30th of
Ani. It may be stated that the notice was given on the 26th of Ani. It is admitted that this notice is not in accordance with S. 106 of the Transfer of
Property Act, as the tenancy being a monthly tenancy, fifteen days'' notice expiring with the end of a month of the tenancy is not given.
The respondent-landlord submits that in a case of forfeiture, a notice under S. 106 is not necessary and as this case is one of forfeiture due to
denial of title, the previsions of S. 106 of the Act are not applicable. S. 111 (g) of the Act relates to forfeiture of lease and provides that in the
three cases referred to in the sub-section, namely, (1) breach of an express condition, (2) the lessee renouncing his character as such and (3) the
lessee being so adjudicated an insolvent and the lease expressly providing that the lesser may re-enter in the happening of such event, the lesser or
his transferee, giving notice in writing to the lessee of his intention, may determine the lease. If notice in writing to the lessee is given under this sub-
section, it is not necessary that the notice should provide for fifteen days'' time expiring with the end of a month as required under S. 106. But the
facts mentioned in the notice should make out that the notice is on the basis of forfeiture. In Thacharakavil Manavikraman v. Noor Mahomed Sait
41 M.L.J. 265 a Bench of this Court held that a landlord is entitled to terminate the lease by issuing a notice unequivocally expressing the intention
to determine the lease on the ground of forfeiture. In this case, the notice neither sets out that it is on the ground of forfeiture, nor the facts disclose
that the landlord was seeking to terminate the lease on the ground of forfeiture. The only reason for termination of the lease that is given in the
notice is default in the payment of rent, and hence the clause relating to forfeiture will not be attracted. In a recent decision of this Court in
Thangavelu v. Bahadur Sheriff 83 L.W. 124 the learned Judge has also expressed the same view. The objection of the tenant that there was no
proper notice has to be upheld. This civil revision petition is allowed and the order of the lower court under revision is set aside. There will be no
order as to costs.