Case Note & Summary
The case involves a civil revision application filed by M/s. Universal Cables Ltd., the tenant, against an eviction decree passed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court in a suit filed by the landlord, M/s. Laxmi Properties Ltd. The suit premises is a servant quarter admeasuring 104.81 sq. ft. located in Birla House, Mumbai, let out to the tenant on a quarterly rent of Rs. 326/- for accommodating the tenant's servant. The tenancy was not in dispute, and it was also not disputed that the protection under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 was not available to the suit premises due to the tenant company having a paid-up share capital of more than Rs. 1 crore. The landlord issued a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 dated 15 February 2006 terminating the tenancy. The notice called upon the tenant to quit at the expiration of the quarterly tenancy which had expired on 31st December 2005. The tenant challenged the validity of the notice, arguing that it was not in conformity with Section 106 as amended by Act No.3 of 2003. The trial court and appellate court decreed eviction, leading to the revision application. The High Court examined the notice and held that the reference to the expired quarter was a mere error and did not invalidate the notice. The court noted that the notice was served during the currency of the tenancy and the tenant was put on notice that the tenancy would terminate at the end of the quarter in which the notice was served. The court also held that the amendment to Section 106 by Act No.3 of 2003 did not apply to tenancies created before the amendment. Accordingly, the revision application was dismissed, and the eviction decree was upheld.
Headnote
A) Transfer of Property Act - Section 106 - Notice to Quit - Validity - The notice terminating tenancy must expire with the end of the tenancy month or year. In the present case, the notice called upon the tenant to quit at the expiration of the quarterly tenancy which had already expired on 31st December 2005, whereas the notice was served in February 2006. The court held that the notice was valid as it was served during the currency of the tenancy and the tenant was put on notice that the tenancy would terminate at the end of the quarter in which the notice was served. The reference to the expired quarter was a mere error and did not invalidate the notice. (Paras 1-10) B) Transfer of Property Act - Section 106 - Amendment Act No.3 of 2003 - Applicability - The amendment to Section 106, which requires a notice of 15 days for monthly tenancies and 6 months for yearly tenancies, does not apply to tenancies created before the amendment. The tenancy in question was created prior to the amendment, and the notice was valid under the unamended provision. (Paras 11-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the notice of termination of tenancy issued by the landlord under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was invalid for not being in conformity with the section as amended by Act No.3 of 2003.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the civil revision application and upheld the eviction decree passed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court.
Law Points
- Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act
- 1882
- Notice to quit
- Tenancy termination
- Quarterly tenancy
- Validity of notice
- Amendment Act No.3 of 2003
