The Hon'ble Apex Court has also, in the case of Bhagabandas Agarwalla v. Bhagwandas Kanu and Ors., MANU/SC/0269/1977 : (1977) 2 SCC 646, already held that,
"It is settled law that a notice to quit must be construed not with a desire to find faults in it, which would render it defective, but it must be construed ut res magis valeat quam pereat. The validity of a notice to quit, ought not to turn on the splitting of a straw. It must not be read in a hyper-critical manner, nor must its interpretation be affected by pedagogic pedantism or over-refined subtlety, but it must be construed in a common sense way."
22. In this reported authority also, the notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, was challenged on the ground that, under the said Section, the notice to quit must expire at the end of the month of the tenancy, or, in other words, at the most, terminate the tenancy with effect from the expiration of the month of the tenancy. It was argued that, the notice to quit issued in the case required the Respondent to vacate the premises within the month of October, 1962 and intimated to him that otherwise he would be "treated as tress-passer from November 1, 1962", in respect of the premises. The question raised before the Apex Court was, therefore, 'what is the meaning and effect of the words "within the month of October 1962" in the context in which they are used in the notice to quit?'; 'Would these words mean that, the tenancy of the Respondent was sought to be terminated at the date earlier of the expiration of the month of October, 1962 and the Respondent is required to vacate the premises before such expiration?' While answering this question, the Apex Court held that,
"When the notice to quit requires the Respondent to vacate the premises within the month of October 1962, what it meant was that, Respondent could vacate any time within the month of October, 1962, but not later than the expiration of that month."
23. The last moment upto which the Respondent could, according to the notice to quit, lawfully continue to remain in possession of the suit premises was the mid-night of October 31, 1962 and hence, the Apex Court held that, it fails to see any difference between a notice asking the tenant to vacate within the month of October 1962 and a notice requiring a tenant to vacate latest by mid-night of October 31, 1962. Because, in both the cases, tenant would be entitled to occupy the premises upto the expiration of October 31, 1962, but not beyond it. Thus, it was held that, the notice makes an intention of the authors of the notice clear that they are terminating the notice only with effect from the end of the month of October 1962 and not with effect from any earlier point of time during the currency of that month and hence, the notice was legal and valid. It was held that, the 'notice to quit' is required to be judged for its validity, in the light of the well recognized principles of law.
24. Here in the case also, what the 'Agreement of Leave and License' provides is, "a one week's previous notice" in writing and the termination notice issued in this case calls upon the Respondents to handover peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises "within 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice". Therefore, it necessarily follows that the Respondents were given clear one week's previous notice and they were called upon to handover vacant possession of the suit premises within 7 days from the receipt of the notice, meaning thereby, till the expiry of 7 days, they were entitled to remain in possession thereof. The day for them to vacate the possession of the suit premises arises only after expiration of 7 days and, accordingly, their license stands terminated only on the expiry of 7 days period and not before it. Therefore, in no way, such notice can be called as illegal or unlawful.
25. As a matter of fact, interpreting this notice in such a manner by holding that, it does not give a clear 7 days previous notice, is reading it in a very hyper-critical manner and not in a common sense way. As observed by the Apex Court here-in-above, the Appellate Court has construed it in this fashion only with a desire to find faults in it, so as to render it defective; whereas, the object must be to give it a meaningful interpretation, which is to be appealable to the common sense and should not revolt against the common sense. The Appellate Court has thus read it in a hyper-critical manner, which can be called, in the words of the Apex Court, as "splitting of the straw".
26. Surprisingly, no such contention that 'notice of termination' is not legal or valid was taken up by the Respondents also, either in their reply to the notice or even before the Estate Officer; presumably because, being persons of common sense, they also understood it in its correct perspective as giving them one week's previous notice in writing. It is disturbing that, the Appellate Court has entered into hair-splitting it, just to overturn the eviction order passed by the Estate Officer, despite negativing all other contentions raised by the Respondents to challenge the said order. The interpretation of any law or even of any notice has to be in tune with the understanding and perception of the common man and not bereft of it. Over-stretching the words and giving it an absurd meaning, which is not contemplated or which is not expected by the person, who is giving the notice or receiving the same, cannot be considered legal or proper. Therefore, this finding of the Appellate Court, being against the tenets established by law, has to be held as 'perverse' and required to be quashed and set aside.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
