LexTHE CALCUTTA CREDIT CORPORATION LTD., & ANR. versus HAPPY HOMES (P) LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
THE CALCUTIA CREDIT CORPORATION LTD., & A:NR.
A
I'.
HAPPY HOMES (P) LTD.
October 23, 1967
[J. C. SHAH, S. M. SIKRI A:'-ID ]. M. SHELAT, JJ.)
B
'1't•11<111cy-lf notice 10 tenninalt· ft•nancv cc11i be wi1ltdrah·n
without
cu11Je11t oj othf!r party.
'
Transfl'r of Property Act, S.s.
106.
111,
l 13-Notice not i11Gccord-
.a11ce H:ith s. 106--Acct:pted by uthcr party and acted upon-If c,t]cctil·c-
"Yl?t:tlicr te11e111cy 011/)' dl·ten11iTzed n-ht•11
po.~:rt>ssion given up.
We.H Benf!a/ Pre111ises Rent ('ontro/ (Tt•111pnrary Prov1\ions) Act 17
·Of 1950, .r.r. 2( 11 ), 12 and 11-1/ exprcs<;iu11 'ft'lltlll,. includes 'statuff)ry
1e11ant'-Whc1lier /le can sub/er.
Hy a lca~e commencing from January l, 1939, for I:! years, a build·
ing in {'.alcutta \l;as let to AB and under the tcrm'i of the lease, subletting
~.1r parring v.·ilh
poss~~-sion \\'ithout the prcviou" con~cnc of the landlord
v.:as prohibited.
After the expiry of the period of 1hc lease, AB continu·
cd in possession hut on August 12, 1953, ser\ 1.'J a notice in v.·riting upon
th~ landlord of their intention to vac;1tc the prcmi:-i:e.., ··on August 31, 1953
'1t 3.30 r.M."
By a suhsoquent lcl!cr on August ~6. 1953, AB informed
the landlord tha1 they did nol intend to vac.:alc the premi'jes on Auguc;t 3 t
.;:1s originally intimated, and that 1heir e;irlier notice be tre;1ted as cancelled.
/\lthough. in reply the landlord refused 10 agree to the 1A·i1hdr;1~·al of the
notice ,<;taring that he had already arranged to let the pren1iscs 10 another
person, AB continued in po!>-;ession and on \fay 7, 19)4 ~uhle1 a part of
the premises to the respondent.
'fhc landlord thereafter instituted 3. suit
for ~jcc11nent tigainst AB v.·hich v.·as settled on ~1arch :!8, 1955 by a consent
decree v.·hereupon AB handt!d over possc-;..,ion to the landlord of the por·
tion of the premises in their ov.n occup<1tion.
'fhc landlord then sued the
n.~pondcnt for a decree for posses!iion ot the premises and mcsne profit'i
and a Single Judge of the High ('curt decreed !he JanJJord\ claim. The
Divi"Sion Bench aJlo\vcJ lhe :i.ppcal and dismissed the lanJlorJ\ claim.
HELD : The appeal must be allo"cd and the decree pa<Scd hy
the
TriaJ C,ourt restored.
(i) On the expira1ion of the period of notice <lated August 12. 1951.
the tenancy of AB stood determined.
()nee a notice is served detcrn1in-
ing the ten<1ncy or showing :tn intention 10 4uit on the expiry of the period
of notice, the tenancy b at an end. unh:~s IA·irh the consent of the parry
t1.) "°·horn the notice is gi ... cn, 1hc tenancy is agreed to be treated as.suh-
;.,/:,ting.
124Cl
Tayh·11r v. U'ildin, ( 1867-68) L.R. 3 Fx. (\1scs 303; referred to.
(ii) A notice \\hich docs net con1ply \\ith the rc4uircmcnts of s. 106
01 the ·rran.;fer of Property Act in th;H it docs not expire at !he end of
the month of the tenancy, or the end of the year of the tcn;1ncy. as
the
ca!>e mav he. l)r of v.·hich 1hc dur;1tion is shorler than the Juralion con-
1cmpl:1tc~I by s. 106. may srill be accrptcd hy the party served \\·i1h
the
nolic.:c; and if !hat p~rty acccpis anJ Jct<; upon ii, 1hc p;irty serving
the
rhlliCl' \\ill he cstorpcd from denying ils validily.
The l.1nJlorJ's refusal
to agree to the \\'ithJra\\·al of the notice since he h3d ;tlrc•1Jy ;igrecd
Ill
c
D
E
F
G
H
..
A
B
c
D
E
F
•
G
H
CALCUTTA CREDIT CORP. V. HAPPY HOMES (Shah, J.) 21'
lea.•e the premises to another person from September 1, dearly showed'
that the offer to terminate the tenancy on August 31, 1953 was accepted
by him and he had acted upon that offer.
The tenancy was therefore de-
termined at 3.30 P.M. on August 31, 1953 on acceptance by the landlord
of the notice dated August 12, 1953_ [25A-C; Fl
There was no force in the contention
that in order to determine
a
tenancy under the Transfer of Property Act at the instance of the tenant,
there must he actual delivery of the possession.
That contention is con-
tra[\ to the plain terms of s. 111 (h) of the Act.
[25H]
(iii) Consid.ered in the light of the scheme and object of the Act, -the
expression 'tenant' in cl. (c) of s. 12(1) or ins. 13(2) must mean a con-
tractual tenant alon-2 and not a statutory tenant.
The
definition in'.
s. 2( 11) of the expr.ession 'tenant' includes a statutory tenant, but the defic
nition docs not apply if there is anything repugnant in the subject or con-
text.
A stututory tenant has no interest or estate in the premiExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.