Wigneswaramoorthy and Another v. Singham – sllr 1995 volume 1 page 339

In the case between Wigneswaramoorthy and another (Plaintiff) and Singham (Defendant), the court addressed the issue of the validity of a landlord’s notice to quit under the Rent Act where the notice period was deficient by one day due to a leap year miscalculation. It was determined that the landlord’s clear intention was to terminate the tenancy at the end of February 1984 and that a reasonable tenant would not be misled by the one-day discrepancy. The holding established that strict compliance with statutory notice requirements may give way to the practical interpretation of the parties’ intent, reaffirming the legal principle of “ut res magis valeat quam pereat.” The decision relied on Section 22(6) of the Rent Act and pertinent case law, emphasizing that minor, non-misleading technica