The main legal point established is that the termination of tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act must be valid, and the acceptance of rent after the expiry of the lease period does not waive the termination.

ORDER

1. This Special Leave Petition has been filed assailing the Judgment and final order dated 19-4-2022 in Civil Revision Petition No.500/2013 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru.

2. The Revision Petition was filed challenging the dismissal of the suit for ejectment passed by the XVth Additional Judge and Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru. The schedule property was the Shop bearing No.12 in the ground floor bearing Khata No.6/1 situated at Erappa Layout, Banaswadi Main Road, Bengaluru, measuring 13 feet X 24 feet.

3. The petitioner herein, viz., defendant therein, took up a contention that there was no valid termination of tenancy as per Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short 'TP Act'). The Trial Court upheld the said contention after analysing the evidence on record and dismissed the suit on the sole ground that there was no valid termination of tenancy and hence, suit for ejectment was not maintainable.

4. Essentially, the contention of the respondents herein, viz., the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff before the High Court in the Revision Petition, was that in view of Exts. D1 to D7 lease agreements, which are though unregistered documents, the period of lease ought to have been held as 11 months. As per Section 111(a) of the Act, such a lease would determine by the efflux of time and under such circumstances notice of termination under Section 106 of the Act was not required. After taking into consideration the rival contentions with reference to the provisions under the Act and the decisions specifically referred to in the impugned judgment, the High Court came to a positive finding that it is a case where tenancy got terminated by efflux of time by operation of Section 111(a) of the Act and in such circumstances, in view of the law laid down in the decision in Shanti Prasad Devi & Anr. Vs. Shankar Mahto & Ors. reported in AIR 2005 SC 2905 = (2005) 5 SCC 543, mere acceptance of the landlord after the expiry of the period of lease would not amount to waiver of the termination of lease. Obviously, the High Court took into account lease deeds Exts.D1 to D7 produced in evidence by the petitioner himself (the defendant in the suit) and found that they were unregistered and would reveal that every calendar year the parties went on executing lease agreements. Ultimately, accepting the contentions of the respondents herein based on the evidence on record the High Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and partly decreed the suit. Thereafter, the High Court directed the petitioner herein to pay arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.1400/- per month from 01-01-2017 till possession of the property is handed over and also to handover the possession of the property to the petitioners therein, viz., respondents herein, within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. It is the said order passed in revision that is under challenge before us.

5. Heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioner.

6. As noted above, the impugned order was passed by the High Court in exercise of its power of revision under Section 18 of the Karnataka Small Cause Courts Act. As relates the scope of revisional power there can be no two views that the High Court is empowered to interfere with findings of fact only if the findings are perverse or based on no evidence or suffering from error of law or there has been non-appreciation or non-consideration of a material on record by the court(s) below. It needs no reiteration that another view is possible based on the evidence on record can be no ground for the High Court to interfere with an order of court(s) below in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

7. In the case on hand, the suit for ejectment filed by the landlord was dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground that there was no valid termination of the tenancy under Section 106 of the TP Act. During the pendency of the revisional petition filed against the judgment and d