Special Leave Petition Civil No 15667 of 1987
813 From the Judgment and Order dated 11111987 of the Patra High Court in Appellate Decree No 133 of 1983
GL Sanghi SK Mehta MK Dua SM Sarin and Aman Vachher for the Petitioner
Salman Khurshid Irshad Ahmad VD Phadke and LR Singh for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J
This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 11th November 1987 of the High Court of Patna
On 16th January 1958 a lease deed was executed between the lessee Latifur Rehman and lessor Khaja Midhat Noor hereinafter called the respondent with permission to sub lease the same
The said Latifur Rehman sub leased the premises to Burmah Shell Oil Distributing Company the petitioner herein for running a petrol pump and making necessary constructions thereon
The lease was for a period of ten years which expired on 16th January 1968
It appears further that after the lease period had expired the sub lessee petitioner continued to pay the rent which was being accepted continuously from month to month by the respondent the lessor
A notice was issued by the respondent to the lessee terminating the lease and for giving vacant possession of the land by the 15th January 1973 and also requiring the removal of the buildings plant etc by the 16th January 1973
In the last two paras of the said notice it was stated that the lessee was to surrender the lease hold land on the expiry of 15th January 1973
No notice was given separately to the petitioner terminating its lease
A suit for ejectment was filed thereafter
The lessee Latifur Rehman did not contest the suit for ejectment
The petitioner however contested that proceeding
The learned Munsiff I Gaya by his judgment dated 8th May 1979 dismissed the suit holding that the notice terminating the lease was necessary and the notice in this case was invalid
The plea of the landlord that the tenancy expired by afflux of time was rejected
On 22nd February 1983 the 1st Additional Sub Judge Gaya allowed the appeal of the landlord and held that the notice terminating the tenancy and asking the petitioner to surrender by the 15th January 1973 was a valid notice
The main question involved is whether there was a valid termination of the lease and as such the sub lessee the petitioner herein was 814 bound to deliver vacant possession
A written statement had been filed by the petitioner the sub lessee wherein it was inter alia stated that it was holding over the lease hold property after the expiry of the lease by paying rent
No notice terminating tenancy was received by it
The validity of the notice to the lessee was also challenged
The trial Court held that the lease was not extended for a fixed period of five years in absence of any written instrument
The following two questions of law were re formulated by the High Court 1 In absence of any registered instrument executed by both the parties ie the lessor and the lessee after the period stipulated in Ext
4 ie the period of ten years can it be said that the lease was extended automatically for a period of five years in terms of Ext 4 or further whether the lessee was holding the suit property as tenancy from month to month 2 If the first part of question 1 is held in negative and second part in the affirmative as a consequence of which it must be held that the lease was required to be determined whether the notice as contained in Ext
7 validly terminated the lease of the lessee Indubitably the lessee came in possession of the property in question on 16th January 1958
The lease was for a period of ten years with a right of renewal for a further period of five years
After the expiry of ten years no instrument was executed by the parties and the lessee continued to remain in possession of the suit property
The lessor accepted the rent and allowed the lessee to continue
It is relevant in this connection to refer to the provisions of the hereinafter called the Act 
Section 106 of the Act deals with the duration of certain leases in absence of written contract or local usage and section 107 deals how leases are to be made
These sections read as follows 106
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 either lessor or lessee by six months  notice expiring with the end of a year of the tenancy and a lease of immovable property for 815 any other purpose shall be deemed to be a lease from month to month terminable on the part of either lessor or lessee by fifteen days  notice expiring with the end of a month of the tenancy
Every notice under this section must be in writing signed by or on behalf of the person giving it and either be sent by post to the party who is intended to be bound by it or be tendered or delivered personally to such party or to one of his family or servants at his residence or if such tender or delivery is not practicable affixed to a conspicous part of the property
A lease of immovable property from year to year or for any term exceeding one year or reserving a yearly rent can be made only by a registered instrument
All other leases of immovable property may be made either by a registered instrument or by oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession
Where a lease of immovable property is made by a registered instrument such instrument or where there are more instruments than one each such instrument shall be executed by both the lessor and the lessee Provided that the State Government may from time to time by notification in the Official Gazette direct that leases of immovable property other than leases from year to year or for any term exceeding one year or reserving a yearly rent or any class of such leases may be made by unregistered instrument or by oral agreement without delivery of possession
 In view of the paragraph 1 of section 107 of the Act since the lease was for a period exceeding one year it could only have been extended by a registered instrument executed by both the lessor and the lessee
In the absence of registered instrument the lease shall be deemed to be lease from month to month
It is clear from the very language of section 107 of the Act which postulates that a lease of immovable property from year to year or for any term exceeding one year or reserving a yearly rent can be made only by a registered instrument
In the absence of registered instrument it must be a 816 monthly lease
The lessee and the sub lessee in the facts of this case continued to remain in possession of the property on payment of rent as a tenant from month to month
The High Court so found
We are of the opinion that the High Court was right
Section 116 of the Act which was placed before the High Court deals with the effect of holding over and provides as follows 116
If a lessee or under lessee of property remains in possession thereof after the determination of the lease granted to the lessee and the lessor or his legal representative accepts rent from the lessee or under lessee or otherwise assents to his continuing in possession the lease is in the absence of an agreement to the contrary renewed from year to year or from month to month according to the purpose for which the property is leased as specified in section 106
 It was submitted before the High Court that this was not a case of continuing of old tenancy for a period of five years but in view of the clear provisions of section 107 which we have noted hereinbefore and in the absence of a registered instrument it must be held that it was holding over and not continuation of old tenancy for a further period of five years
That would be the harmonious construction of section 107 read with section 116 in the facts of this case
We are of the opinion that the High Court was right that the tenancy was automatically determined on the expiry of ten years which was stipulated in Ext
Thereafter the lessee continued to hold the property and the lessor accepted the rent
The lease was therefore renewed from month to month because it was not the case of any party that it was for agricultural purposes
In that view of the matter the termination of the lease could only be by giving a valid notice
Such notice was given to the lessee but not to the sub lessee
The respondent s case is that a notice to sub lessee was not necessary
It was contended on behalf of the appellant that by Ext
7 the lessee was asked to quit the lease hold premises on the expiry of 15th June 1973
Admittedly in this case the lease was executed on 16th January 1958 and from that date the lease came into existence
For computing the period of ten years the 16th January 1958 had to be excluded
The tenancy was therefore terminated on the expiry of 16th of the month
The notice in the instant case of the quit which was Ext
7 before the Court dated 30th November 1972 817 was given on behalf of the respondent to Latifur Rehman lessee
In paragraph 4 of Ext
7 it was stated that the lessee was to deliver the possession of the lease hold property by 16th January 1973
In paragraph 5 of Ext
7 the lessee and sub lessee were required to remove the buildings plants etc
by the 16th January 1973
In the last but one and the last paragraph of Ext
7 it was stated that the lessee was to surrender the properties of the lease hold land on the expiry of 15th January 1973
The question is whether there was a valid notice
The High Court held that in the facts of this case there was a valid notice of termination and after the valid notice of termination of the lease to the lessee there was no need to give a fresh notice to the sub lessee
Notice must be read in the context of the facts of each particular case having regard to the situation of the parties to whom it is addressed
In Harihar Banerji and others vs Ramasashi Roy and others 45 Indian Appeals 222 at page 225 the Judicial Committee observed as follows 
that notices to quit though not strictly accurate or consistent in the statements embodied in them may still be good and effective in law that the test of their sufficiency is not what they would mean to a stranger ignorant of all the facts and circumstances touching the holding to which they purport to refer but what they would mean to tenants presumably conversant with all those facts and circumstances and further that they are to be construed not with a desire to find faults in them which would render them defective but to be construed ut res magis valeat quam pereat
 This is how the notices should be literally construed
This decision was relied upon by this Court in Mangilal vs Suganchand Rathi  There however the facts were different
There the defendant was a tenant of the plaintiffs
The defendant was in arrears of rent for one year to the extent of Rs 1020
On April 11 1959 the plaintiffs served a notice on the defendant requiring him to remit to them Rs1020 within one month from the date of service of notice failing which suit for ejectment would be filed
This notice was received by the defendant on April 16 1959
On June 25 1959 the defendant sent a reply to the notice enclosing with it a cheque for Rs1320
This amount consisted of the rental arrears as well as the rent due right up to June 30 1959
The plaintiffs accepted the cheque and cashed it and gave a fresh notice on July 9 1959 requiring the defen 818 dant to vacate the premises by the end of the month of July
The defendant did not vacate the premises
Then the plaintiffs filed a suit to eject the defendant upon the ground that the latter was in arrears of rent for one year and had failed to pay the arrears within one month of the service of the notice dated April 11 1959 upon him
From the undisputed facts it was clear that the defendant was in fact in arrears of rent and had failed to pay it within the time prescribed by cla of section 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act 1953
It was held that though the notice dated 11th April 1959 could be construed to be composite notice under section 4a of the Accommodation Act and section 106 of the it was ineffective under section 106 of the because it was not a notice of 15 clear days
In that case the defendant had only 14 clear days  notice
Reference was made to the aforesaid decision of Harihar Banerji vs Ramsashi Roy supra which was distinguished by this Court
This Court held that notice under section 106 of the Act must be strictly complied with
In so holding this Court relied on a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Subadini vs Durga Charan Law ILR which was construing a notice contemplated by section 106 of the Act and had held that in calculating the 15 days  notice the day on which the notice was served was excluded and even if the day on which it expired was taken into account it would be clear that the defendant had only 14 clear days  notice
This position was again reiterated by the Calcutta High Court in Gobinda Chandra Saha vs Dwarka Nath Patita AIR This Court affirmed this view that notice must be understood in the light of Harihar Banerji vs Ramsashi Roy supra
This Court held that the suit was actually based upon the notice dated July 9 1959 which gave more than 15 days  clear notice to the defendant to vacate the premises
This notice was a valid notice under section 106 of the Act
In the instant case if all the paragraphs of Ext 7 which is a notice in the instant case are read together in harmony it would be manifest that the lessee was directed to hand over the lease hold property on 16th January 1973
In the aforesaid view of the matter in our opinion there was a valid notice of termination of the lease of the lessee
In any event the lessee did not dispute this contention
The lessee accepted a valid termination of the lease hold property
In Roop Chand Gupta vs Raghuvanshi Pvt Ltd and another   it was held by this Court that it is quite clear that law does not require that the sub lessee need be made a party if there was a valid termination of the lease
This Court reiterated that in 819 all cases where the landlord instituted a suit against the lessee for possession of the land on the basis of a valid notice to quit served on the lessee and did not implead the sub lessee as a party to the suit the object of the landlord is to eject the sub lessee from the land in execution of the decree and such an object is quite legitimate
The decree in such a suit would bind the sub lessee
This Court noted at page 1892 of the report that this might act harshly on the sub lessee but this was a position well understood by him when he took the sub lease
The law allows this and so the omission cannot be said to be an improper act
In the facts of this case these observations apply more effectively
The termination of the lease was not disputed by the lessee
There is no allegation of any collusion between the lessee and the respondent
In that view of the matter we are of the opinion that the High Court was right
The suit in question was instituted in May 1979 and the valid notice to quit was given long after the expiry of the period of lease
The sub lessee had long innings
It is time for him to quit
There is no merit in this petition
The special leave petition fails and is therefore dismissed with costs
RSS Petition dismissed


Summary:
The petitioner who was detained under sub section 2 of section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act 1985 by an order dated 11th june 1987 filed a writ petition in this Court alleging that both the detaining authority as also the State Government had not considered the representation dated 15th july 1987 made by him with utmost promptitude and that in fact there was no disposal of the said representation by these authorities
In the counter affidavit filed by the detaining authority it was averred that the representation received by it on 21st July 1987 was duly considered and rejected the same day
Allowing the appeal  HELD The right of representation under Article 225 of the Constitution of India is a valuable and constitutional right
The Government is expected to ensure that the constitutional safeguards embodied in Article 225 are strictly observed
830E F Mohinuddin vs District Magistrate Beed  Ors  relied on
In the instant case the petitioner had the right to make a representation not only to the detaining authority but also to the State Government which had the power to revocation
Although the representation made by him to the detaining authority has been considered and rejected this is not a substantial compliance of the 829 constitutional rights enshrined in Article 225 of the Constitution
The allegation made by the petitioner that he made a further representation to the State Government had not been controverted
The State Government had disdained from filing any counter affidavit for obvious reasons
830C E The wholly unexplained and unduly long delay rather the undeniable failure on the part of the State Government in the disposal of the representation renders the detention of the petitioner iilegal
829G H The order of detention made under sub section 2 of section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act 1985 is accordingly quashed
831D