1. This is an appeal by the defendant challenging the decree of the Trial Court ordering his ejectment from the suit premises which is in his occupation as the tenant of the plaintiff.

2. It is a common ground that the defendant was a tenant of the plaintiff and the rent of the premises in his occupation was Rs.16,000/- per month. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff served a notice dated 18.9.2006 (Ex.P1) on the defendant terminating his tenancy after expiry of fifteen days’ period from the date of service of notice and stating that on his failure to do so, legal action will be taken. The notice having been served on the defendant, a reply dated 6.10.2006 (Ex.P3), enclosing with it, a cheque for Rs.16,000/-, being the rent for the month of September, 2006, was sent. The defendant did not vacate the premises even after expiry of the period allowed under the notice (Ex.P-1) and therefore, suit was instituted on 9.11.2006.

3. Written statement was filed contesting the suit, wherein, it was alleged that, on account of non-complying with the demand for more advance and enhanced rent, the plaintiff caused the legal notice on frivolous and vexatious ground, with an oblique motive to evict the defendant and to let out the suit premises to third persons for higher advance and rent. Other allegations made in the plaint were denied. On account of the amendment made to the plaint, additional written statement was filed on 29.01.2010.

4. The Trial Court raised the following issues:

i) Does plaintiff prove that he has validly terminated the tenancy of defendant?

ii) Does defendant proved that this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit?

iii) Whether plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs claimed in the plaint?

iv) What Decree or Order?

5. Plaintiff deposed as PW-1 and Exs.P1 to P4 were marked. For defendant, DWs.1 and 2 deposed written arguments were filed by both the parties. Considering the rival contentions and after appreciation of the evidence, the Trial Court held that, the plaintiff has validly terminated the tenancy of the defendant and that, the defendant has failed to prove that the Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit; and that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief claimed in the suit. The suit was decreed and the defendant was directed to hand over possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff within 3 months, by paying Rs.16,000/- p.m. towards damages from the date of suit till handing over vacant possession after deducting the payments made during the pendency of the suit. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant has filed this appeal.

6. Sri G.R. Mohan, learned advocate, appearing for the appellant, contended that, the plaintiff’s suit could not have been decreed because:

(i) The notice –Ex.P1 was invalid for the purpose of S.106 of the Transfer of Property Act (‘The Act’ for short).

(ii) The notice to quit was waived by the plaintiff by reason of acceptance of the cheque for ERs.16,000/- sent along with Ex.P3 and also the rent amount paid from time to time during the pendency of the suit and the appeal. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions in the case of CHOTU MIA Vs. MT. SUNDRI – AIR 1945 PATNA 260 and M/S AMAR PROMOTERS Vs. J.S.A. GAJENDRA REDDY – 2005 AIR KANT.HCR 1884.

7. Sri K. Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent – plaintiff, contended that;

(i) A notice complying with the requirements of S.106 of the Act vide Ex.P1 was served on the defendant giving fifteen days’ clear notice to vacate the premises, which was acknowledged and in view of the reply sent as per Ex.P3, the suit was instituted.

(ii) The cheque sent along with Ex.P3 is rental arrears due for the month of September, 2006, which the plaintiff accepted and encashed under protest and a specific reply to the said effect was also sent. Since the defendant did not vacate the premises even after expiry of the time allowed under the notice at Ex.P1, as indicated therein, legal action was taken i.e., suit was institut