Somnath Iyer, J.—This revision petition is before us consequent on a reference made to this Bench under S. 8 of the Mysore High Court Act.

(2) The petitioner is the tenant who was sued by the landlord who is the respondent for possession and rent, which, according to the landlord had fallen due for a period of three years. There were many contentions urged by the tenant. There was a decree for eviction made by the Civil Judge which was confirmed by the lower appellate Court. But the decree for rent was for and Anr. smaller sum of money than that claimed by the landlord. Whereas the landlord claimed a sum of Rs. 207-50 nP. the decree was for Rs. 98-42 nP.

(3) The suit was instituted on April 12, 1959 and was preceded by the issue of a notice Exhibit 37 on February 9,1959.The tenant was informed by that notice that he was a defaulter for a period of three years and that the rent of Rs. 300/- was due from him and that his tenancy was terminated and that he should deliver possession by the end of the month failing which he would be sued for possession and rent. The principal reason why this revision petition was referred to a Bench was that whereas according to the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Bhaiya Punjalal Bhagwanddin Vs. Dave Bhagwatprasad Prabhuprasad, AIR 1963 SC 120 in the case of a contractual tenancy the termination of the tenancy by a notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was as necessary as a demand for payment of the rent in arrears under Section 12(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 which will be referred to as the Bombay Rent Act, there are two decisions of this Court in Shrinivas Annappa v. Dhondoba Balakrishnappa 1958 36 Mys LJ 858:AIR 1959 Mys 87 and in Shankarappa Gurpadappa v. Rayappa 1961 39 Mys LJ 340 which may be understood as expressing a contrary view.

(4) The argument advanced in this revision petition by Mr. Kothawale is that since the tenancy between the parties was admittedly a contractual tenancy, a notice determining the tenancy issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act should have been issued by the landlord, and that not having been done, the suit brought by the landlord was unsustainable and the tenant could not be evicted.

(5) Mr. Kothawale did not dispute and indeed he could not have been successful in disputing it--that by the notice Exhibit 37 the landlord did terminate the tenancy, and that one part of that notice is really a notice which is enjoined by Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act since by that part of the notice the landlord did give notice to the tenant terminating the tenancy and giving him fifteen days notice expiring with the end of the month of the tenancy. But it was maintained by Mr. Kothawale that Exhibit 37 when properly understood, is no more than a mere notice under Section 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act and really not a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. It was further urged that if Exhibit 37 could be understood as a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, then it should follow that it was not the notice required by Section 12(2) of the Rent Act and that in either event the suit was not preceded by one of the two steps which were statutorily prescribed.

(6) It is now clear from the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Bhaiya Punjalal Bhagwanddin Vs. Dave Bhagwatprasad Prabhuprasad, AIR 1963 SC 120 that a landlord who wishes to sue his tenant in the case of a tenancy governed by the Bombay Rent Act must needs terminate the tenancy under Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act which he could do by the issue of the notice prescribed by Section 106 of that Act. It was also further elucidated that the stage at which the notice enjoined by Section 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act becomes relevant is the stage which is attained after the termination of the tenancy by the notice prescribed by the Transfer of Property Act.

(7) It is on the basi