Report No. 181
After the said UP amendment, the first part of section 106 reads as follows:
"In the absence of a contract or local law or usage to the contrary, a lease of immovable property for agricultural or manufacturing purposes shall be deemed to be a lease from year to year terminable, on the part of a lessor or lessee, by six months' notice; and a lease of immovable property for any other purpose shall be deemed to be a lease from month to month, terminable, on the part of either lessor or lessee, by thirty days's notice."
The section as amended in UP and as proposed to be amended by us applies to notices by lessor or by the lessee. We, therefore, propose that in the case of leases from year to year the words "expiring with the end of a year of the tenancy" and in the case of leases from month to month, the words "expiring with the end of the month of the tenancy" be omitted.
We shall refer to two cases decided in UP after the 1954 Amendment. It was held that by virtue of the aforesaid amendment carried out in U.P., the notice issued by the plaintiff will not be invalidated even if the time falls short of the prescribed period, provided the suit is filed by the plaintiff after expiry of the period prescribed in the section. A short note on judgment of the Allahabad High Court in (1980) UPLT(NOC) 11, in regard to the law as amended in U.P. reads as follows:-
"Section 106 (as amended by the UP Act) - plaintiff describing cause of action to be arising two days before the expiry of 30 days 10 time - relief claimed not invalidated as the suit was filed much after the date."
We propose to amend such 106 of the Principal Act, so as to make similar notices valid. Again, it has been observed by the Commission that there exist contrary views of High Courts as to the commencement of the period mentioned in respect of the notice under section 106. The said contrary view is reflected in Gorakh Lal v. Maha Prasad Narain Singh, AIR 1964 All. 260 (FB). Similar contradictory views can also be noticed in other High Courts.
The Supreme Court had decided in Mangilal v. Sugan Chand AIR 1965 SC 101 that the date of service of notice has to be excluded in computing the period. We propose putting this as need in legislative form in as much as, even after the Judgment of the Supreme Court in 1965, litigants have been filing suits without noticing this principle decided by the Supreme Court. We, therefore, propose to recommend amendment of section 106 providing that the period mentioned in respect of the notice shall be computed from the date of receipt of notice. In order to bring the aforesaid proposals in legislative form, a draft Bill is annexed with the Report, which incorporates amendments to section 106.
We further propose to give retrospectivity to the extent that the omission of these words `expiring with the end of a year of tenancy' and `expiring with the end of a month of the tenancy' shall be applicable to all notices issued before the date of commencement of the amending Act, where such suits or other legal proceedings have been filed by the lessor or by the lessee by the date of commencement of the amending Act, unless of course the suits have been filed before the date of commencement of the amending Act and the dismissal of the suit or proceeding has become final.
We also propose to substitute the words 'fifteen days' by 'sixty days' in the case of monthly tenancies, in respect of notices to be issued after the commencement of the amending Act. This will be a reasonable period of notice to either party. Fifteen days period appears to be too short.
We are also recommending that the proposed amendments be applied to pending proceedings.
We hope that, once these amendments are brought into force, unnecessary rounds of litigation will be avoided and justice will be done to the plaintiff who had issued the notice, be he the lessor or lessee.
We, therefore, recommend the amendments to the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 in the manner mentioned below. The draft Bill could be on the lines of the draft Bill annexed with the report.
We recommend accordingly.
Justice M. Jaganadha Rao
Dr. N.M. Ghatate