1. This appeal is by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree of the trial court dismissing the suit filed by him for ejectment, mesne profits and other reliefs against respondents 1 to 4 herein.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal would be referred to by their rankings as they are arrayed in the suit before Trial Court.

3. The suit schedule property is the property bearing No.29 situated at Avalahalli, Uttarahalli, Mysore road, Bangalore -26 measuring of 7000 sq.ft. morefully described in the schedule to the plaint (hereinafter referred to as the suit schedule property).

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property. The first defendant represented by its partners are the tenants under the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property on a monthly rent of Rs. 13,000/-for the first six months and thereafter Rs.17,500/-. The period of lease under the unregistered lease deed was 8 years. The defendants committed willful default in payment of rents due to the plaintiff. Therefore he got issued a statutory notice dated 03.03.2004 to the defendants calling upon them to pay the arrears of rent which was due to the extent of Rs.5,16,500/- as on and also terminated the tenancy. No reply was sent by the defendants to the said notice and they also did not pay the arrears of rent. Thereafter the plaintiff got issued one more statutory notice dated to the defendants terminating their tenancy. The defendants sent an untenable reply as per Ex.P3 dated 23.02.2005, but did not comply with the demand of the plaintiff to vacate the premises and also to pay the arrears of rent. Therefore, the plaintiff left with no other alternative was constrained to institute the suit seeking for delivery of vacant possession of the suit schedule property and for mesne profits.

5. After service of notice, the defendants appeared and contested the suit. They contended that in view of the lease deed fixing the term of lease for 8 years from 07.06.2001, the date on which they were inducted as tenants and as the suit was filed on 18.03.2005 before the expiry of the lease period, suit is not maintainable, premature and liable to be dismissed.

6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following Issues:

1. Whether the termination of tenancy of the defendant is valid and is in accordance with law?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of suit property from the defendant?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits claimed?

4. Whether the defendant No.2 and 4 prove that suit is not maintainable?

5. What decree or order?

7. The plaintiff in support of his case, got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked three documents as Exs.P1 to P3. The defendants did not choose to examine any witness nor got marked any documents in support of their case.

8. Thereafter, the trial Court on hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties and on going through the evidence and the documents on record, held that plaintiff has failed to prove that there is valid termination of tenancy and he is not entitled to possession of the suit schedule property and mesne profits. The defendants have proved that the suit is not maintainable. Accordingly, by the impugned judgment and decree dated 25.01.2007, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

9. The appellant/plaintiff being aggrieved of the judgment and decree of the Trial Court is in appeal before this Court.

10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff submitted that the trial Court was not justified in dismissing the suit on the ground that lease period has not expired. He further submitted that the premises was leased in favour of the defendants for a period, of 8 years. The lease was not under a registered lease deed, but it was unregistered lease deed. Since the lease was beyond one year, it has to be taken that the tenancy was from month to month. Therefore th