Judgment Summary — S.A. Bobde, J.

Factual and Procedural Background

This is a second appeal filed by the defendant (the appellant) challenging a decree of the lower Appellate Court that ordered the defendant's eviction. The court records the hearing of Shri N.S. Talmale, counsel for the appellant. The only point pressed in this appeal concerns the validity of a notice issued under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act that was to take effect from 28-2-1992; the appellant contends the notice was invalid because it did not take effect at the end of the tenancy month.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether a notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act that purported to take effect on 28-2-1992 was invalid because it did not terminate the tenancy at the end of the month (29-2-1992 in the leap year 1992).
2. Whether the 2002 amendment to section 106 (and the Transitory provision in section 3 of the Transfer of Property (Amendment) Act, 2002) applies to notices issued before the commencement of the amendment and to proceedings pending at that commencement, thereby removing any requirement that such notices expire "with the end of a month of the tenancy."

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The appellant (defendant) argued that the notice under section 106 which was to take effect from 28-2-1992 was not legal because it did not take effect at the end of the month of the tenancy.
• Learned counsel contended that the notice would be valid only if it was intended to take effect at the end of the month (i.e., 29-2-1992 in 1992, a leap year).

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent's arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the textual history of section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act as it stood before and after the 2002 amendment. The pre-amendment text of section 106 included a parenthetical phrase requiring fifteen days' notice to expire "with the end of a month of the tenancy." The opinion reproduces the pre-amendment provision and then sets out the amended subsection (1).

After amendment, the bracketed parenthetical requirement was deleted and section 106(1) was recast to provide, for leases other than agricultural or manufacturing, that they are deemed month-to-month and "terminable, on fifteen days' notice" without the requirement that the notice expire at the end of the tenancy month.

The court further relied on section 3 of the Transfer of Property (Amendment) Act, 2002 (the transitory provision), which expressly provides that the amended section 106 applies to:

• all notices in respect of which any suit or proceeding is pending at the commencement of the Act; and
• all notices which have been issued before the commencement of the Act but where no suit or proceeding has been filed before such commencement.

Applying these provisions, the court concluded that the deleted requirement (that the notice must expire at the end of the month of the tenancy) no longer applies and that the amended provision governs the validity of the notices in question, including those issued before the amendment.

Holding and Implications

Appeal dismissed.

Holding: The second appeal lacked merit and was dismissed. The court held that, following the 2002 amendment to section 106 and the transitory provision in section 3 of the Transfer of Property (Amendment) Act, 2002, a notice need not be intended to take effect at the end of the month of the tenancy; the earlier parenthetical requirement is no longer necessary.

Implications: The direct effect is that the appellant's challenge to the notice dated to take effect on 28-2-1992 fails and the decree for eviction as maintained by the lower Appellate Court stands. The opinion does not purport to establish a broader new precedent beyond its application of the statutory amendment and transitory provision to the notices at issue.

Appeal dismissed.