1. A short however an interesting question arises for consideration in this civil revision application namely 'whether notice of the respondent-landlord terminating tenancy of the applicant (tenant) was invalid, being not in conformity with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as amended by Act No.3 of 2003.

2. The applicant/tenant is aggrieved by an eviction decree as passed by the trial Court and as confirmed by the appellate court, in an ejectment suit brought about by the respondent-landlord.

3. The suit premises is a servant quarter being Room No.13 admeasuring 104.81 sq.ft, on the ground floor of a building known as “Birla House” situated at 21, Mount Pleasant Road, Mumbai, which was let out to the applicant on quarterly rent of Rs.326/- for the purpose of accommodating applicant's servant. The tenancy is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the protection under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short 'the 1999 Act') is not available to the suit premises, in view of Section 3(1)(b) of the 1999 Act, as the applicant company has a paid up share capital of more than Rs.1 crore.

4. By a notice of the respondent's Advocate issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 dated 15 February 2006 the respondent terminated the tenancy of the applicant. As the entire controversy revolves around the issue of tenancy being terminated by this notice, it would be appropriate to extract the relevant contents of the said notice which read thus:

“4. Our client state that entirely without prejudice and the continued efficacy of any previous notices terminating your tenancy and in order to avoid any technical objections or plea which may be raised by you in support of your contentions of the waiver of the earlier notices to quit which might have been served upon you by or on behalf of my client. We have been instructed by my client to give you this notice & to terminate your tenancy which we hereby do and call upon you to quit, vacate and deliver to my client vacant and peaceful possession of the aforesaid premises namely servant quarter, situated at Birla House, 21 Mount Pleasant Road, Mumbai 400006, occupied by you as my clients quarterly tenant at the expiration of the quarterly tenancy which has expired on 31st December 2005, in which this notice is served upon you.

5. Please take notice that in default of your compliance with the aforesaid requisition my clients shall file a suit against you to eject you from the said premises at your risk, cost and consequences.

6. Please take notice that upon the expiration of the period of this notice my client will be entitled to recover from you & you will be liable to pay to my client mesne profits in respect of the aforesaid premises at the market rate prevalent in the area.” (Emphasis supplied)

The above notice was responded by the applicant's advocate's letter dated 7 April 2006, however without raising any issue on the time period qua termination of the tenancy. The following is the relevant extract of the applicant's reply:

5. My clients state that the lease for the said premises is still subsisting. My client has not done anything which gives your client any reason for terminating the lease. Therefore, the purported notice to terminate the purported tenancy through your letter dated 15.02.2006 is not only unjustified but also illegal and untenable.

… … …

7. With reference to para 4 of the said letter dated 15.02.2006, my clients adopts the statements/averments made in para 5 above and denies everything which is contrary to and/or inconsistent therewith. My client also fails to understand as to how the lease came to be expired on 31st December 2005. In any event your client has been regularly accepting money towards the contractual rent even for a period subsequent to 31st December 2005 and issuing receipts for the same i.e., for the period after December 2005. Therefore, there is no question of expiry of lease.”

(Emphasis supplied)

5. The respon