N.A. Britto, J.––This is the plaintiff/landlord's second appeal arising from R.C.S. No. 76/91/D and was admitted on a substantial question of law which was modified to read as follows :––

"Whether the Decree No. 43525 is applicable when the lease was created of an open plot on 11.1.1978 and, therefore, no notice was required to be given by the plaintiffs to the defendant before filing the suit for eviction."

2. The learned counsels appearing for the parties have now submitted that the answer to the said substantial question of law has got to be in the affirmative, but before the said submission is accepted by this Court there are a few facts which are required to be taken note of.

The Decree No. 43525 governing the relationship between the landlords and tenants had been in force in this State from 7.3.1961. Subsequently, the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 came to be extended to this State from 1.11.1965.

3. The parties hereto shall be referred to in the names as they appear in the cause title of the said civil suit.

4. There is no dispute that the plaintiff is the owner of the land. By virtue of an agreement styled as an Agreement for Lease of Land, the plaintiff let out to the defendant a plot of land admeasuring 96 sq. m. (112 x 8 m.) for the construction of a carpentry or wooden material covered with tiles or zinc, of their property situated at Betim having Land Registration No. 4245 and Matriz No. 101, for a period of three years from 1.2.1978 and on payment of monthly rent of Rs. 60/-, to be paid in advance in the first week of each month at the residence of the landlord. The other relevant and important conditions of the said lease were as follows :–

(1) That the tenancy shall begin from the first of every month and the rent of every month hereby reserved shall fall due on the first week of the month :

(4) That the tenant shall not at any time carry on or permit to be carried on any trade or business upon or in the land or permit the same to be occupied by any other person whatsoever or sub-let;

(6) That the land is only for the purpose of construction of carpentry and cannot be used for any other purpose.

5. Although the lease was to come to an end on 31.1.1981, the same continued with the plaintiff accepting the rent till June, 1990, but thereafter the plaintiff sent a registered notice to the defendant dated 30.6.1990 terminating the leasehold right of the defendant, if any, and requiring the defendant to vacate the land on the expiry of one month on the receipt of the said notice.

6. The plaintiff then filed suit for eviction of the defendant on the ground that the defendant had committed breach of the terms of the said lease, namely, that the defendant:––

(a) had changed the user of the land namely that instead of running a carpentry had started running a motor workshop;

(b) that the same was run not by the defendant but by her son; and

(c) the defendant was in arrears of the payment of rent from June, 1990.

7. The defendant contested the suit stating that there was no breach of any of the conditions of the lease. The defendant pleaded that although there was certain conditions in the lease deed dated 1.2.1978 which expired on 1.2.1981 the plaintiff himself had allowed the defendant to carry on any other business in the said shed at the request of the defendant after the expiry of the lease deed dated 1.2.1978 and therefore the defendant started the motor workshop soon after the expiry of the said lease deed, along with carpentry in the said shed.

8. Article 46 of the Decree gives a right to a lessor to rescind the agreement. Some of the grounds for rescission are where the lessee :––

(a) does not pay the rent within the time limit and at the proper place or does not make a deposit thereof which the law considers as exonerative (liberatorio);

(b) makes use or permits that a third party may use the leased building for purposes of land for business different from those for which it is meant;

(f) sub-leases totally or partl