A telegraphic notice to quit that does not bear the signature of the landlord is not a valid notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act.

( 1 ) THE defendant in the suit is the appellant. The plaintiff filed asuit for eviction of the defendant from the plaint schedule property and for recovery of an amount of Rs. 233/- towards rent or damages for use and occupation of the suit site. The plaintiff s case is that a vacant site was leased out to the defendant on a rent of Rs. 50/- per month, that the plaintiff if sued a notice on 16-1-1978 terminating the tenancy and, therefore, he filed the suit.

( 2 ) THE defendant resisted the suit by raising various contentions. The first contention is that the Less or was the plaintiff s father, but not the plaintiff and so, the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit. The second contention is that the property that was leased out is not a vacant site, but it is a building within the meaning of Rent Control Act as there was a structure therein when the property was leased out. The third contention is that the notice to quit issued under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act is not a valid notice to quit. The Trial Court rejected all the contentions of the defendant and decreed the suit. Against that, the defendant preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court also upheld the findings of the Trial edurt and dismissed the appeal. Therefore the Second Appeal is filed by the defendant.

( 3 ) ON the first question, whether the lessor is the plaintiff or hisfather, it is stated that the property belongs to the joint family and subsequently it was alloted to the share of the plaintiff. Both the Courts below have held that the plaintiff is the lessor and so he has locus standi to file the suit, and that being purely a question of fact on which concurent findings have been given by both the Courts belew, it cannot be interfered in this second appeal.

( 4 ) THE second question is whether the property that was leased outis a vacant site or whether there was a structure in it by the time the property was leased out? If there was a structure, it comes within the scope of the rent Control Act in which case the Civil Court will not have jurisdiction and the plaintiff will have to file a petition before the Rent Controller. In the Trial Court, an Advocate-Commissioner was appointed to see whether there was any structure in the site and he reported that there was some structure. The Trial Court held that the structure must have been put up just before the Advocate-Commissioner s visit to the suit property. But the learned Appellate Judge held that the structure must have been put up earlier to the visit of the Advocate-Commissioner, but some time after the property was leased out. Both the Courts below have given a concurent finding of fact that the property that was leased out is a vacant site and there was no structure in it at the time when it was leased out. Since a concurrent finding was given by both the Courts below on the question of fact that the property which was leased out is a vacant site, this Court cannot interfere with that finding in this Second appeal.

( 5 ) THE important question of law that has been raised in this Secondappeal is, whethere the quit notice issued by the plaintiff under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act is valid or not? The plaintiff issued a telegraphic notice which is marked as Ex. A-4 dated 16-1-1978 to the defendant terminating the tenancy. To that, the defendant sent a reply marked as ex. A-3 dated 17-1-1978. Earlier to that, the plaintiff s father issued notice, Ex. A-1 dated 4-2-1977. But that was not received by the defendant. But the father of the plaintiff did not file the suit. Eventhough under that notice tenancy is said to have been terminated by the end of February, 1977 the tenant was continued and so, he is a tenant holding over under Section 116 of Transfer of Property Act and he is entitled to a notice under Sec. 106 of T. P. Act. Now the question that has to be decided is, whether the telegraphic notice, Ex. A-4 dated 16-1-1978 issued by the plaintiff is a valid n