FACTS
In this case, The respondent filed an application against the appellant under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Tamil Nadu Rent Act, on the ground of personal necessity.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Rent Controller: held that the requirement of the respondent was not genuine and he accordingly dismissed her petition.
Appellate Court: held in her favour on the point of her requiring the premises bona fide for her personal necessity but maintained the dismissal of her application on the ground that a notice to quit was necessary and the one given by her was not in accordance with law.
High Court: referred to K. Sukumaran Nair v. S. Neelakantan Nair and held that notice to quit under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was not necessary for seeking an eviction of a tenant under the Tamil Nadu Rent Act.
REFERRED CASE LAWS
Sukumaran Nair v. S. Neelkantan Nair: the court held that notice to quit under sec. 106 of the transfer of property Act, was not necessary for seeking an eviction of a tenant under the Tamil Nadu Rent Act.
Mangilal v. Suganchand Rathi: Notice is essential for bringing to an end the relationship of landlord and tenant.
ISSUE
Whether in order to get a decree or order for eviction against a tenant under any State Rent Control Act it is necessary to give a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act?
OBSERVATION
The requirement of sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is that a lease from month to month can be terminated only after giving fifteen day’s notice expiring with the end of a month of the tenancy either by the landlord to the tenant or by the tenant to the landlord.
In many state statutes different provisions have been made as to the grounds on which a tenant can be evicted and in relation to his incurring the liability to be so evicted. Some provisions overlap those of the Transfer of Property Act. Some are which are mostly in favour of tenants but some are in favour of the landlord also.
JUDGEMENT
If the state Rent Act requires the giving of a particular type of notice in order to get a particular kind of relief, such notice will have to be given.
If the termination of the Contractual tenancy by notice does not, because of the Rent Act provisions, entitle the landlord to recover possession and he becomes entitled only if he makes out a case under the special provision of the State Rent Act, then, termination of the Contractual relationship by notice is not necessary. Mangilal case was not correctly decided
If the contract is to be put to an end it has to be terminated by the notice to quit as given under sec. 106 of TPA, but it is equally clear by sec.111 of the TPA that the lease of immovable property determines by various modes therein prescribed then the contract of lease comes to an end, and landlord can exercise his right of re-entry.
Therefore, no question of giving a notice to quit to such a lessee who continued in possession after the determination of the lease. If the contract once came to an end there was no question of terminating the contract over again by a fresh notice.
Determination of a lease in accordance with the Transfer of Property Act is unnecessary and mere surplusage because the landlord cannot get eviction of the tenant even after such determination. The tenant continues to be so even thereafter. Thus, the Rent Act for eviction of the tenant by itself is sufficient and it is not obligatory to found the proceeding on the basis of the determination of the lease by issue of notice in accordance with sec.106 of the TPA.
The High Court was right in its view that no notice to quit was necessary under sec.106 of the TPA in order to enable the landlady-respondent to get an order of eviction against the tenant-appellant.