BHAGABANDAS AGARWALLA versus BHAGWANDAS KANU & ORS.

Citation: [1977] 3 S.C.R. 75 · Decided: 25-02-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

. 
, 
75 
BHAGABANDAS AGARWALLA 
A 
v. 
BHAGW AND AS KANU & ORS. 
February 25, 1977 
[P. N. BHAQWATI AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.] 
B 
Transfer of P1operty Act, S. 106, Notice to quit, whether should be construed 
in ai hyper-critical manner. 
The appellant filed a suit for evicting his tenant Bhagwandas Kanu etc. after 
giving them a notice to quit. The Trial Court dismissed the suit but on appeai, 
the First Appellate Court passed a decree for eviction against the respondents. 
In second appeal before the High Court, the respondents assailed the. validity 
of the notice to quit, on. the ground that it did not conform with the requirements 
C 
of 5', 106 of the Trahsfer of Property Act. The High Court allowed the appeal 
holding that the notice to quit did not clearly terminate the tenancy on the ex-
piration of the month of the tenancy, and was i:q.valid. 
Allowing the appeal by special leave, the Court, 
HELD : A notice to quit must be consVUed ut res n1agis valeat quani pereat. 
It must not be read in a hyper.critical manner, nor must its interpretation be 
affected by pedagogic pendantism or over refined subtlety, but it should be 
D 
construed in a common sense way. The notice to qui required the respondents 
to vacate "within the month of October 1962", otherwise they would be treated 
as trespassers from 1st November, 1962. 
This makes the 
intention 
of the 
authors of the notice clear that they were terminating the tenancy only with 
effect from the end of the month of October 1962 and not with effect from any 
-earlier point of time during the currency of that month. 
[76 D, F, 77·E] 
Sidebothan1 v. Holland (1895) 1 Q.B. 378; Harihar Banerji v. Ramsashi Roy 
45 I.A. 222, applied. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2080 of 1968. 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
11-4-68 of the Assam and Nagafand High Court in Second Appeal 
No. 98/65. 
G. L. Sanghi and K. J. John for the Appellant. 
S. K. Nandy and G. S. Chatterjee for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
BHAGWATI, J., This appeal by special leave raises a short question 
relating to the validity of a notice to quit given by the appellant termi-
nating the tenancy of the respondents. 
The appellant, as landlord, 
filed a suit for eviction against the respondents as tenants, after giving 
' a notice to quit dated 25th September, 1962. 
The Trial Court dis-
missed the suit but on appeal, the First Appellate Court reversed the 
judgment of the Tritt! Court and passed a decree of eviction against 
the respondents. 
The respondents preferred a second appeal to the 
High Court and the only question debated before the High Court was 
in regard to the validity of the notice to quit. There were two grounds 
on which the notice to quit was assailed as invalid. The first is imma-
terial since the decision of the High Court negativing it has not been 
challenged before us on behalf of the respondents. 
The second was 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
76 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
ll 9771 3 s.c.R. 
that the notice to quit was invalid as it was not in conformity with the 
requirements of section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. That sec-
tion says that in the absence of a contract or local law or usage to the 
contrary, a lease from month to month shall be terminable, "on the 
part of either lessor or lessee, by fifteen days' notice expiring with the 
end of a month of the tenancy". The argument of the respondents be-
fore the High Court was that the notice to quit did not expire with the 
end of the month of the tenancy and was hence invalid. This argument 
found favour. with the High Court and it held that the notice to quit 
was not clear and unambigtious and was "open to doubt as to the date 
of determination of the tenancy" and did not terminate the tenancy on 
the expiration of the month of the tenancy and was, therefore, invalid 
and in this view it dismissed the suit of the appellant. The appellant 
thereupon preferred the present appeal with special leave obtained from 
this Court. 
· 
, · 
The only question which arises for determination in this appeal is 
whether the notice to quit given by the appellant to the respondents was 
invalid as not being in conformity with the requirements of section 106 
of the Transfer of Property Act. ·The notice to quit, so far as material, 
was in the following terms : 
"You arc hereby informed by this notice that you wHI 
vacate the said house for our possessi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.