( 21 )
MUTTU NATCHIA et al v. PATUMA NATCHIA et al.
D. C., Kalutara, 1,032.
Landlord and tenant—Denial of tenancy and of notice to quit—Evidence—Averment and vroof of notice, when not necessary.
A tenant, who disclaims to hold of his landlord and pots him atdefiance, is not entitled to have the action against him dismissed forwant of a valid notice to quit.
And in such action the plaintiff need not aver and prove any noticeto quit.
rpHE plaintiffs raised this action for the recovery, of arrearsof rent of a house alleged to be due from the defendants andfor ejectment of the defendants therefrom. It was averred thatthe defendants occupied the house as their monthly tenants oncondition of paying rent monthly till the end of the year 1891,but that in January, 1892, they questioned plaintiffs’ title to thepremises and refused to pay rent, and had been since thenunlawfully withholding possession of the same, though they hadreceived notice to quit.
The defendants, in their answer, traversed these allegations, andsetting up title in themselves prayed for dismissal of the plaintiffs’action.
Two issues were framed:—(1) Had Plaintiffs a right of owner-ship to the house, and (2) did defendants hold under plaintiffs.
After examination of the plaintiffs, the Proctor for defendantscontended that the notice given to the defendants was bad, as itwas not a full calendar month’s notice (1 S. C. B. 352). Uponfurther argument the District Judge dismissed the plaintiffs’action upon the ground that the plaintiffs had “mo standing in“ view of the valueless notice to quit said to have been served“ upon defendants.”
The plaintiffs appealed.
Pieris, for appellants.
Perera, for respondents.
1st March, 1895. Browne, J.—
The plaint in this case sufficiently averred that the defendant,after entering and holding as tenant of the plaintiff, had dis-claimed to hold of him and put him at defiance. It was unnecessarytherefore that the plaintiff, as he did, should have averred or havesought to prove any notice to quit given by him to defendant,and defendant was not entitled to have the action dismissedbecause no valid notice was given.
( 82 )
The decree of dismissal most therefore he set aside and the actionremitted for trial, but as the plaintiff himself acted thronghontas if snch notice was necessary until apparently after the decreewas pronounced, when he more clearly apprehended his position,he is not entitled to recover any costs of the proceedings up toand inclusive of this appeal from the defendant.
MUTTU NATCHIA et al. v. PATUMA NATCHIA et al