Peria Karuppan vs Subramanian Chetti and Others

We think the 3rd defendant as tenant off the plaintiff, the usufructuary mortgagee, was entitled to reasonable notice before ejectment. In the

present case the plaintiff gave only 15 days'' notice in December in the middle of the cultivation season, which is clearly unreasonable. It was then

argued for the respondents, that in this case no notice was necessary, because in his written statement the 3rd defendant had denied the plaintiff''s

title as landlord, and so forfeited his tenancy. In support of this contention a recent decision Abdulla Naha v. Moidin Kutti (1907) 17 M.L.J. 287

was referred to. This decision is not in accordance with Unhamme Devi v. Vaikunta Hegde ILR (1893) M. 218 where it is said to be settled law

that the denial of title for the first time in the suit does not disentitle the tenant to notice for the reason that the plaintiff is bound to show that at the

date of suit he had a complete cause of action. We agree with this decision which is in accordance with the view taken in Bombay and Calcutta -

Vithu v. Dhondi ILR (1890) B. 407; 2 Prannath Shaha v. Madhu Khulu ILR (1886) C. 96; Nizamuddin v. Mamtazuddin - and we are unable to

follow the decision in Abdulla Naha v. Mohidin Kutti (1907) 17 M.L.J. 287.

In the result, the decree of the District Judge must be set aside and the decree of the District Munsif must be restored with costs in this and in the

lower appellate Court.