Parties to a rent/lease agreement can by their express agreement vary the length of statutory notices required for recovery of premises. Where they so decide, they will be bound by the length of notices agreed.
The justice of this case is very clear. The Appellant had held on to property regarding which it had breached the lease agreement from day one. It had continued to pursue spurious appeals through the hierarchy of Courts to frustrate the Judgement of the Trial Court delivered on 8/2/2000 about 20 years ago. After all, even if the initial notice to quit was irregular, the minute the Writ of Summons dated 13/5/1993 for repossession was served on the Appellant, it serves as adequate notice. The ruse of faculty notice used by tenants to perpetuate possession in a house or property which the landlord had slaved to build and relies on for means of sustenance can not be sustained in any just society under the guise of adherence to any technical rule. Equity demands that whenever and wherever there is controversy on when or how notice of forfeiture or notice to quit is disputed by the parties, or even where there are irregularities in giving the notice to quit, the filing of an action by the landlord to regain possession of the property has to be a sufficient notice on the tenant that he is required to yield up possession. I am not saying here that statutory and proper notice to quit should not be given. Whatever form the periodic tenancy is whether weekly, monthly, quarterly, yearly, etc., immediately after a Writ is filed to regain possession, the irregularity of notice, if any is cured. The time to give notice should start to run from the date the Writ is served. If for example, a yearly tenant, six months after the Writ is served, and so on. All the dance drama around the issue of irregularity of the notice ends, The Court would only be required to settle other issues if any between the parties. This Appeal has absolutely no merit and it is hereby dismissed.
From the above decision, it would seem that the position of the law on the mandatory issuance of statutory notices is no longer valid. It appears that the service of a Writ on the Respondent amounts to sufficient Notice to Quit.