DATTONPANT GOPALVARAO DEVAKATE versus VITHABRAO MARUTHIRAO JANAGAVAL

Citation: [1975] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 67 · Decided: 03-04-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

. J 
DAITONPANT GOPALVARAO DEVAKATE 
v. 
VITHABRAO MARUTHIRAO JANAGAVAL 
April 3, 1975 
[V. R. KRISHNA !YER AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.] 
Transfer of Property Act (4 of 1882), Sections 106, !JO 
ond 111-Scope 
of. 
67 
A 
B 
The appellant was tenant under the respondent's predecessor for a period 
of one year tenancy commencing from April 9, 1945. The _respondent pur- _ 
chased the property in August, 1968 and the appellant became his tenant . 
On November 19, 1968 the respondent gave notice to the appellant terminating 
C 
his tenancy and asking him to deliver possession by December 8, 1968 .. There· 
after he filed an application for eviction of the appellant under the Mysore 
Rent Control Act, 1961. The trial court dismissed the application but the 
first appellate court allowed the appeal and the High Court confirmed the 
order in revision. 
In appeal to this Court it was contended, inter alia, that there was no 
valid notice terminating the tenancy. 
D 
.Allowing the appeal to this Court, 
HELD : ( 1) There are no grounds justifying the interference with the 
findings of fact recorded by the first appellate court and the High Court that 
the respondent required the premises reasonably and bona fide for his personal 
occupation, and that no, hardship, would be caused to the tenant by passing 
E 
, the decree. 
-
(2) The lease was not for a manufacturing purpose and the holding over 
by the appellant under s. 116 of the Transfer of Property Act created a month· 
to-month tenancy terminable by 15 Q'ays notice ending, with the tenancy month 
given under s. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. [70B]. 
(3) Under s. 110 of the Transfer of Property Act, in computing the period 
of one year the date of commencement of the tenancy, that is, April 9, 
1945, had to be· excluded. Therefore, the one year's tenancy ended on April 
9, 1946. By holding over the tenancy _from month-to-month started from 
April 10, 1946 ending on the 9th a·ay of the following month. Therefore, 
F 
the view taken by the first appellate court and by the High Court that the 
one year's tenancy ended on the 8th April, 1946 and hence the monthly tenancy 
started from the 9th day of the month ending on the 8th day of the following 
month is- clearly erroneous in law. 
That being so there was no valid and" G 
legal termination of the contractual tenancy. [70 E, F & H]. 
Benoy Krishna Das and others v. Salsiccioni and others 59, Indian Appeals, 
414, applied. 
( 4) The appellant was a contractual tenant who would have become a 
statutory tenant within the meaning of s. 2 (r) of the Mysore Act if he 
~ould have con.tinued in poss.ession after the, termination of the tenancy in 
his favour. 
Without term1nation of the contractual tenancy by a valid notice H 
or other mode set out in s. 111 of the Transfer of Property Act it was 
not open to the landlord to treat the' appellant as a statutory tenant ~nd seek 
his eviction without service of a valid notice to quit. [71 DJ. 
Ganga Dutt Murarka v. Kartik C.~andra Das and others [1961] 3 S.C,R. 
813 and Pooran Chand v. Mori/al and others [1963] 2 Suppl. S.C.R. 906, refer-
red to; 
68 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1975] SUPP, S.C.R. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. l!SO(N) of 
1974. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 
29th March, 197 4 of the Karnataka High Court in C. Revn. Petn. 
No. 1054 of 1973. 
V. S. Desai and R. B. Datar for the appellant. 
Y. S. Chilale, P. C. Kapur and V. N. Ganpule, for the respon-
dent. 
The Judgment of the Court was celivered by 
UNTWALIA, J.-The defendant-appellant in this appeal by special 
leave was a tenant of the suit premises situated in the town of Hubli 
when the plaintiffs-respondent purchased the property from the ori-
ginal owners by two sale deeds executed in August, 1968. 
The ap-
pellant thereafter became a tenant under the respondent. 
The latter 
gave a notice purporting to terminate the former's tenancy and there-
after 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-ap-
plication in revision under section 50 of the Act in the Karnataka 
High Court. 
The High Cour

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.