Presumed tenancy and notice to quit under month-to-month tenancy governed eviction where rent and permission were proved.

Possession with the landlord's permission and payment of rent can justify a presumption of tenancy even where no valid operative lease came into existence. On those facts, the tenancy was treated as a month-to-month tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act because there was no valid contract or legal basis for a different duration. As a monthly tenancy, it required fifteen days' notice to quit expiring with the end of a month of tenancy; in the absence of such notice, eviction could not be sustained and the tenant's possession was protected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a tenancy in favour of the defendant could be presumed on proof of possession with permission and payment of rent despite absence of an operative lease. (ii) If a tenancy was presumed, whether its duration was to be treated as a tenancy from month to month requiring notice to quit before eviction.

Issue (i): Whether a tenancy in favour of the defendant could be presumed on proof of possession with permission and payment of rent despite absence of an operative lease.

Analysis: On the facts found by the appellate court, the defendant had remained in possession of the land with the permission of the plaintiff's predecessor-in-interest and had paid rent. In such circumstances, a tenancy could be presumed even though the parties may have intended to create a permanent lease and no valid operative lease came into existence.

Conclusion: A tenancy in favour of the defendant was rightly presumed.

Issue (ii): If a tenancy was presumed, whether its duration was to be treated as a tenancy from month to month requiring notice to quit before eviction.

Analysis: In the absence of a valid contract or other legal basis to the contrary, the tenancy had to be governed by Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and treated as a month-to-month tenancy terminable by fifteen days' notice expiring with the end of a month of tenancy. Since no such notice had been given, eviction could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The tenancy was month to month and the plaintiff's claim for eviction failed for want of notice to quit.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on the merits because the defendant's tenancy was presumed and, being a monthly tenancy, had not been validly determined.

Ratio Decidendi: Where possession with the landlord's permission and payment of rent are proved, a tenancy may be presumed even without a valid lease, and in the absence of a valid contract to the contrary such tenancy is governed by Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act as a month-to-month tenancy requiring notice to quit.

---