R. Govindarajalu Naidu vs S.A.M. Ayyaru Chettiar

P.S. Kailasam, J.—The contention that is raised is that the notice is not in accordance with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The

Notice, Exhibit A-3, is certainly not in accordance with Section 106 in that it does not give fifteen days notice expiring with the end of the month of

the tenancy. The trial Court, as well as the appellate Court, held that according to a decision of this Court, notice u/s 106 was not necessary. But

the revision Court has held that as the tenant has denied the title of the landlord, no notice is necessary, relying on the decision of this Court in

Sadagopa Alwar v. Elumalai Chetty (1970) 1 M.L.J. 16.

A lease of an immovable property is determined u/s 111(g) by forfeiture. The sub-section provides for three contingencies on the happening of

which the lessor may re-enter, (1) when the lessee breaks an express condition which provides that on breach thereof, the lessor may re-enter, (2)

when the lessee renounces his character as such by setting up title in a third person or by claiming title in himself and (3) when the lessee is

adjudicated insolvent and the lease provides that the lessor may re-enter on the happenings of such an event. In all these three cases, the sub-

Section provides that the lessor or his transferee should give notice in writing to the lessee of his intention to determine the lease. Though the notice

need not be in accordance with Section 106, a notice in writing to the lessee of his intention to determine the lease on one of the three grounds

mentioned in Section 111(g) is necessary. This was the view taken by Sadasivam, J., in R. Thangavelu Vs. Bhahadur Sheriff, . This decision is in

accordance with the express provision of Section 111(g). Agreeing with this view I allow this petition. The landlord is entitled to file a fresh

application complying with the above requirements. There will be no order as to costs in this revision petition.