LexMANGILAL versus SUGANCHAND RATHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. ,, I 5 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 239 rectness of the decree for the amount of interest 1963 pendente lite independently of the claim to set aside -- that decree. The appellant here has not specifically State of Mahara- challenged the decree in that respect and therefore shtra the High Court is right in holding the memorandum . v._ of appeal to be sufficiently stamped. The appeal Mishrz 1t1d''· is therefore dismissed with costs. Tarachand 0 na Appeal dismissed. Raghubar Dayal J . MANG I LAL v. SUGANCHAND RATHI (P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SuBBA RAo, K.N. WANCHOO, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND J.R. MUDHOLKAR JJ.) Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1955 (23 of 1955), s. 4(a)-Notice-Whether tenant should in arrears on the date of suit-Acceptance of arrears-If right under notice waived-Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), s. 106. The defendant was a tenant of the plaintiffs. The defendant was in arrears of rent for one year to the extent of Rs. 1,020. On April 11, 1959 the plaintiffs served a notice on the defendant requir- ing him to remit to them Rs. 1,020 within one month from the date of service of notice, failing which suit for ejectment wou Id be filed. This notice was received by the defendant on April 16, 1959. On June 25, 1959 the defendant sent a reply to the notice enclosing with it a cheque for Rs. 1,320. This amount consisted of the rental arre~rs as well as the rent due right up to June 30, 1959. The plamt1ffs accepted the cheque and cashed it and gave a fresh notice on July 9, 1959 requiring the defendant to vacate the premises by the end of the month of July. The defendant did not vacate the premises. Then the plaintiffs filed a suit to eject the defendant upon the gr~mnd that the latter was in. arrears of rent for one year and had fa!led to pay the arrears w1thm one month of the service of the notice dated April 11, 1959 upon him. From the undisputed facts 1t was clear that the defendant was in fact in arrears of rent and had failed to pay it within the time prescribed by cl. (a) of s. 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1953. Held: (i) Though the notice dated April 11, 1959 could be c.onstrued to be composite notice under s. 4(a) of the accommoda- tion Act and s. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act it was ineffective 1963 October 24 1963 Mangilal v. Suganchand Rat hi 240 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] uuder s. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act because it was not a notice of 15 clear days. In the present case, the defendant had only 14 clear days' notice. Subadini v. Durga Charan Lal, I.L.R. 28 Cal. 118 and Gobind Chandra Saha v. Dwarka NathPatita, A.I.R.1915 Cal. 313, approved. Harihar Banerji v. Ramsashi Roy, L.R. 45 I.A. 222, dis- tinguished. (ii) The suit was actually based upon the notice dated July 9, 1959 which gave more than 15 days' clear notice to tho defendant to vacate the premises. This notice was a valid notice under s. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. (iii) The contention that a suit under cl. (a) of s. 4 of the Act is not maintainable unless a tenant is in arrears on the date of the • suit, cannot be sustained. If this contention had to be accepted it would be virtually re-writing the section by saying "that the tenant was in arrears of rent at the date of suit" in place of that the "tenant has failed to make payment etc." It is certainly not open to a court to usurp the functions of a legislature. Nor again, is there scope for placing an unnatural interpretation on the language used by the legislature and impute to it an intention which cannot be inferred from the language used by it by basing ourselves on ideas derived from other laws intended to give protection to the tenants from eviction ay landlords. (iv) The ground set out in cl. (a) of s. 4 need not be shown by the landlord to exist at the date of institution of the suit. All that is necessary for him to establish is that the tenant was in fact in arrears, that he was given one month's notice to pay up the arrears and that in spite of this he failed to pay these arrears within one month of service .of notice on him. (v) The effect of cl. (a) of s. 4 is merely to remove the bar created by the opening words of s. 4 on the right which a landlord has under s. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act to terminate a: tenancy of a tenant from month to month by giving a notice termina- ting his tenancy. The character
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.