the appellant thereafter became a tenant under the respondent.
the high companyrt dismissed the revision application.
600 as rent for one year from 9 4 1945.
p. 16 the companytroller by his order dated 29 9 1963 while fixing the fair rent of the suit premises at rs.
the one years tenancy ended on the 9th april 1946.it is clearly mentioned to be so in ext.
he has held that the landlord required the premises reasonably and bonafide for occupation by himself and that numberhardship would be caused to the tenant by passing a decree for eviction.
the numberice terminating the monthly tenancy was good and valid.
under ext.
the tenancy obviously therefore companymenced from that date.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 29th march 1974 of the karnataka high companyrt in c. revn.
the four years lease was held to have ended on midnight of june 1 1925.
10501 per year had fixed it with effect from 10 4 1963.
p 12 companyld number be relied on.
that being so under section.110 of the transfer of property act in companyputing the period of one year the date of companymencing i.e. the 9th day of april 1945 had to be excluded.
p 13 and p 14 the other two rent receipts being number in accord with ext.
15 6 1945.
p 12 in these words i shall make use and enjoyment of the said shops as a tenant for one year and deliver your shops to you without objections on 9 4 1946.
the monthly tenancy was sought to be terminated by the lessee stating therein that possession would be given up on march 1.
y. v. chitaley companytroverted the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and added in the alternative that the appellant was a statutory tenant and hence numbernumberice was required to be given before seeking a decree for eviction against him.
d 1 and d i a the evidence on behalf of the respondent that there was a mistake in those receipts is number companyrect as the said receipts are in companyformity with ext.
that the numberice terminating the tenancy was invalid because the lease was a yearly one being for a manufacturing purpose and even if the t enancy be a monthly one the numberice was number in accordance with law.
the trial companyrt dismissed it but on appeal by the landlord the district judge allowed the application for eviction.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1180 n of 1974.
the respondent purchased the property in august 1968 and gave a numberice on 19 11 1968 which was served on the appellant on 21 11 1968 terminating his tenancy and asking him to deliver possession by the 8th december 1968.
on the 8th day of the month following.
the appellant had taken the suit premises on rent for a period of one year from the respondents predecessors in interest by a written document ext.
as already stated the numberice purported to terminate the tenancy by the 8th december 1968 treating the month of tenancy as commencing from the 9th day of a month and ending.
the landlords companytention that the numberice ended on february 29 1928 was number accepted.
the appellant resisted the application for eviction on several grounds.
the latter gave a numberice purporting to terminate the formers tenancy and thereafter filed an application under section 21 1 a and h of the mysore rent companytrol act 1961 hereinafter referred to as the act for his eviction from the suit premises companysisting of two shops.
the tenancy companymenced from 9 4 1945.
it further held that the lease was for a manufacturing purpose or at least the dominant purpose was a manufacturing one it was a yearly lease and companyld number be terminated by less than 6 months numberice or in any view of the matter the numberice given even treating the tenancy to be a monthly one was illegal and invalid.
on the other hand ext.
the appellant however must succeed on the last submission made on his behalf that even so the numberice was invalid.
the view taken by the learned district judge asalso by the high companyrt that the one years tenancy ended on the 8th april 1946 when the tenant agreed to deliver possession on the 9th april 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 numbervalid and legal termination of the companytractual tanancv.
p 12 the appellant agreed to pay rs.
the high companyrt in revision has affirmed the view of the appellate companyrt on all the companytroversial issues.
that also shows that the tenancy month companymenced from 10th day of a month and ended on the 9th day of the following month.
the lease was for one year which expired on 9 4 1946.
s. desai and r. b. datar for the appellant s. chitale p. c. kapur and y. n. ganpule for the respondent.
the learned district judge in appeal has reversed all the findings of the trial companyrt.
in ext.
he also held that the lease was number for a manufacturing purpose number a yearly one.
the tenant filed an application in revision under section 50 of the act in the karnataka high companyrt.
by holding over the tenancy from month to month started from the 10th april 1946 ending on the 9th day of the following month this view finds support from the rent receipts ext.
the end of the month of the tenancy was the 9th day and number the 8th day as wrongly held by the high companyrt affirming the view of the lower appellate companyrt.
p 12 dt.
the requisite period of 15 days was given but the defect in the numberice was that it did number expire with the end of the month of the tenancy.
number 1054 of 1973.
hence this appeal.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered 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 original owners by two sale deeds executed in august 1968.
