JUDGMENT

KAILASAM, J.:— This appeal is by special leave by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Second Appeal No. 1520 of 1966.

2. The plaintiff Pradesh Kumar Bajpai who is the owner of premises No. D48/128-129 let a portion of the premises to the respondent Binod Behari Sarkar in the year 1949 for carrying on his business of manufacturing blocks and other printing materials. In October, 1955, the plaintiff let out the entire premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 200. The plaintiff filed the suit on the ground that the respondent had defaulted in payment of rent and prayed for a decree for ejectment and for being put in possession of the premises and for arrears of rent and or mesne profits pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 200 per month. The defendant denied that he was a defaulter stating that he was always ready and willing to pay the dues and the respondent had deliberately declined to accept the rent. Though no specific plea of relief against forfeiture for non-payment of rent under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act was taken in the pleadings, during the course of the arguments, the tenant claimed the benefit under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act.

3. The Civil Judge who tried the suit found that the tenant was a defaulter in a sum of Rs. 6269.86. He further held that the notice to quit was a valid one but found that as S. 114 of the Transfer of Property Act was applicable to the facts of the case and the balance of convenience being with the defendant, dismissed the suit for possession, but gave a decree for the arrears of rent. The plaintiff aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court went up in appeal to the District Judge who allowed the appeal holding that the tenant was a defaulter within the meaning of S. 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. Disagreeing with the trial Court, the learned Judge held that the trial court was in error in granting relief against forfeiture under S. 114 of the Transfer of Property Act and decreed the suit as prayed for.

4. The defendant preferred a Second Appeal to the High Court. The High Court after making a fresh appraisal of the evidence came to the conclusion that the premises were taken for manufacturing purposes in 1955. On a consideration of the terms of the lease deed of 1955 it found that six months notice was necessary even if the premises were not taken for manufacturing purposes and as required notice of six months was not given the suit is not maintainable and as such liable to be dismissed.

5. The lease deed dated 28-9-1955 is marked as Annexure A-2. The relevant clauses are 3, 6, 9 and 12 which are as follows :-

"3. The lessee will not sell, mortgage or in any other manner transfer or part with the possession of the whole or any part of the demised premises, structure and building or his interest with the same and the lessee will also not enter into any partnership with anybody regarding the business carried on or in any way in the demised premises. But the lessee will be entitled to sublet part of the structure and buildings with the consent of the lessor in writing and lessee will be always responsible for all loss and damage if any.

6. The lessee has the option to continue the tenancy for another period of 3 years that is from 1-9-1956 to 31-8-1959 on the same terms and conditions. The lessee must exercise the option of renewal within 30-6-1956 in writing.

9. That it is hereby agreed by the parties that after the expiry of the period of three years the lessor will have the option to revise the rent with the consent of the lessee. It is also agreed by both the parties that the lease may be terminated by the lessor on giving six months written notice and after 4 years at any time, lessor will also be entitled to terminate the lease on giving six months notice in writing ending with English Calendar month.

12. If the lessee fails and/or neglects to pay rent at the place and in the ma