Sathish Ninan, J.:— The appellant is the defendant in a suit for eviction on termination of lease and for recovery of arrears of rent. The suit was concurrently decreed by the courts below, against which this appeal.
2. That the defendant is a lessee under the respondent/plaintiff is not in dispute. The lease was terminated and the suit is filed for eviction along with arrears of rent.
3. The contention of the appellant/defendant is that, the suit could have been instituted only with the sanction of the Malabar Devaswom Board and admittedly no such sanction was obtained before filing the suit. It is not in dispute that, pending the suit necessary sanction was obtained from the Devaswom Board. That cures the defect if any regarding the institution of the suit. At any rate, the institution of the suit without sanction is only a curable defect and can be ratified. That will not affect the maintainability of the suit. Therefore the said contention fails.
4. The next contention of the appellant is that, the terminated does not satisfy the requirements under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act since the section contemplates six months notice. I find that no such contention was urged before the courts below. The courts below found that Ext. A1, the notice of termination of lease was issued in sufficient compliance under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, the notice having been issued on 23.9.2014 terminating the lease with effect from 31.10.2014. The notice issued is in compliance with the provision.
5. No question of law much less any substantial question of law arises for consideration in the second appeal.
6. The appeal fails and is dismissed.