Holding-over tenancy becomes month to month; written notice may be valid, but lawful service still must be proved.

On expiry of a yearly lease, acceptance of rent after the tenant holds over renews the tenancy by operation of law; where there is no agreement on holding over and the premises are not let for agricultural or manufacturing use, the renewed tenancy is month to month and terminable by fifteen days' notice. A quit notice must be in writing and signed by the landlord or authorised agent, and a notice requiring the tenant to vacate on the month's last day satisfies the period requirement when the day of service is excluded. Service by registered post, however, does not by itself prove lawful tender or delivery, and an inadmissible endorsement on a returned cover is insufficient. Due service was not proved.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the tenancy, after expiry of the original yearly term and acceptance of rent, stood renewed from month to month or from year to year. (ii) Whether the notice to quit was invalid for want of proper form or signature. (iii) Whether the notice was duly served in accordance with law.

Issue (i): Whether the tenancy, after expiry of the original yearly term and acceptance of rent, stood renewed from month to month or from year to year.

Analysis: A lease reserving yearly rent and exceeding one year could not be created except by a registered instrument. When the tenant held over after expiry of the original year and the landlords accepted rent, the tenancy was renewed by operation of law under the holding-over provision. In the absence of any agreement as to the terms of holding over, and as the property was not let for agricultural or manufacturing purposes, the renewed tenancy was governed by the provision applicable to monthly tenancies.

Conclusion: The tenancy, after holding over, became a month-to-month tenancy and was terminable by fifteen days' notice.

Issue (ii): Whether the notice to quit was invalid for want of proper form or signature.

Analysis: A notice under the governing provision had to be in writing and signed by or on behalf of the person giving it. A notice calling upon the tenant to vacate on the last day of the month gave the requisite period when the day of service was excluded. Signature by the landlord's authorised agent satisfied the statutory requirement.

Conclusion: The notice was in proper form and was validly signed.

Issue (iii): Whether the notice was duly served in accordance with law.

Analysis: Service by registered post did not by itself prove tender or delivery at the tenant's residence within the statutory period. The postmarks could support posting and receipt by the post office, but the unsigned endorsement on the returned cover was not admissible to prove refusal by the addressee in the absence of the conditions for admitting such a statement. Presumptions as to regular course of post or official business could not establish personal tender on the relevant date, particularly when the addressee denied service and the cover was addressed to the place of business rather than proved residence.

Conclusion: Due service was not proved.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the tenancy was monthly and, although the notice was otherwise sufficient in form and signature, the plaintiffs did not establish lawful service of the notice to quit.

Ratio Decidendi: On holding over after expiry of a lease created for a yearly term without a registered instrument, and absent an agreement to the contrary, the tenancy renews from month to month; for termination, the landlord must prove valid service of a written notice on the tenant in the manner required by law, and a returned registered cover with an inadmissible endorsement is insufficient to prove such service.

---