S. G. Mahajan, J.

1. 1. The present respondent, who is the original plaintiff, brought the civil suit No. 316/2000 before the Small Causes Court Nagpur for ejectment against the present revision petitioner, who is the original defendant, on the ground of bona fide need and non user of the premises for the purpose for which they were let out, under the provisions of Section 16(1)(g) and (n) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.

.2. Before the institution of suit the plaintiff/respondent had given a notice dated 06-07-2000 terminating the tenancy of the defendant/revision petitioner w.e.f. 31-08-2000. In January and April 2001 the plaintiff/respondent accepted the amounts from the defendant/revision petitioner which according to defendant/ revision petitioner were paid towards the rent and according to plaintiff/ respondent the same were towards the damages for use and occupation. The defendant/ revision petitioner filed an application before the Small Causes Court for rejection of plaint or dismissal of suit on the

.ground that the plaintiff/respondent had accepted the rent after the service of notice terminating the tenancy of the defendant and the acceptance of rent was a waiver of notice of termination of tenancy on his part. This application was rejected by the Small Causes Court on the ground that the notice of termination of tenancy was not necessary for seeking eviction under Section 16 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. This rejection is impugned in the present revision.

2. 3. In this revision the learned counsel for the defendant/revision petitioner raised the point that even in the cases of eviction under the provisions of Section 16 of Maharashtra Rent Control Act the tenancy has to be terminated first by issuing a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and as such the notice terminating the tenancy is essential.

.4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent that for the eviction of a tenant under the provisions of Section 16 a notice of termination of tenancy under Section 106, Transfer of Property Act is not necessary and the notice that was given by the plaintiff/respondent terminating the tenancy of the defendant was redundant. The learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent canvassed that the tenancy can be terminated by issuing a notice under Section 106, Transfer of Property Act without any reasons, on the other hand the provisions of Section 16 of Maharashtra Rent Control Act incorporate various grounds on which the landlord can seek the eviction of a tenant and the eviction can be granted by the Court only if the conditions laid down in those provisions are satisfied. The learned counsel interpreted the provisions saying that the tenancy would be terminated under Section 16 of Maharashtra Rent Control Act only by the Court if the Court is satisfied that the conditions laid down in

.those provisions are fulfilled and unless those conditions are satisfied there can be no termination. According to him in such event the issuance of notice under Section 106, Transfer of Property Act is redundant. In support of these submissions the learned counsel for plaintiff/respondent cited V. Dhanapal Chettiar v. Yesodai Ammal, 1979 Mh.LJ. 773 (SC) = AIR 1979 SC 1745. He also placed reliance on the observation made in para 20 of Hindustan Ferrodo Limited v. Mrs. Harilachman Hasija, 2003(4) Mh.LJ. 50.

3. 5. The ratio of V. Dhanapal Chettiars case is that for the eviction of a tenant under any State Rent Control Act it is not necessary to give notice under Section 106, Transfer of Property Act. Determination of lease in accordance with the Transfer of Property Act is unnecessary and a mere surplusage because the landlord cannot get eviction of the tenant even after such determination. The tenant continues to be so even thereafter. Making out a case under the Rent Act for eviction of the tenant by itself is sufficient and it is not obligatory to found the proceeding on t