Valid quit notice and proved nuisance supported eviction where actual service and statutory breaches were established.

A tenancy notice to quit was held valid where the statute required only one month's notice expiring with the tenancy month; service by registered post was not mandatory, and actual service with tenant awareness was proved. The Court also upheld concurrent findings that the tenant damaged and replaced a collapsible gate without consent, amounting to acts contrary to clauses (m), (o) and (p) of section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Oral and contemporaneous police and criminal evidence further established nuisance and annoyance. Those findings supported eviction, and no interference with the decree was warranted.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the notice to quit was legal, valid and sufficient; (ii) whether the tenant had committed acts contrary to clauses (m), (o) and (p) of section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882; (iii) whether the tenant was guilty of nuisance and annoyance.

Issue (i): whether the notice to quit was legal, valid and sufficient.

Analysis: The tenancy statute required one month's notice expiring with a month of the tenancy before a suit for eviction on the relevant grounds. The Court held that the statute did not insist on service only by registered post, and that the evidence supported actual service and awareness of the notice by the tenant.

Conclusion: The notice to quit was valid and sufficient.

Issue (ii): whether the tenant had committed acts contrary to clauses (m), (o) and (p) of section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Analysis: The Court accepted the concurrent factual findings that the collapsible gate had been damaged and replaced without consent, and that the evidence of the landlord and supporting materials outweighed the commissioner's report relied on by the tenant.

Conclusion: The tenant committed acts contrary to clauses (m), (o) and (p) of section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Issue (iii): whether the tenant was guilty of nuisance and annoyance.

Analysis: The Court relied on oral evidence and contemporaneous police and criminal proceedings to affirm the finding that threats, abuse, and disturbance were proved, constituting nuisance and annoyance within the eviction ground under the tenancy statute.

Conclusion: The tenant was guilty of nuisance and annoyance.

Final Conclusion: The concurrent findings establishing valid notice and statutory grounds for eviction were upheld, leaving no basis to interfere with the eviction decree.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the tenancy statute requires only a month's notice and the evidence proves service and statutory grounds of eviction, concurrent factual findings on damage to premises and nuisance will justify eviction and will not be disturbed in further appeal.

---