The provision of Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act, which requires a notice in writing to be given by the lessor to the lessee of the intention to terminate the lease for forfeiture, cannot be waived by the parties.

1. In the suits out of which these appeals arise the plaintiff alleged that he obtained a registered lease of the land in dispute from the Sasaram Municipality who is defendant No, 2 by a registered document dated the 20th October, 1944. The plaintiff thereafter inducted the principal defendant of each suit in the suit land and the houses which the plaintiff had constructed after taking settlement from the Sasaram Municipality. The plaintiff brought the suits against the principal defendants for a declaration that his lease with the Sasaram Municipality is still subsisting find the plaintiff is entitled to realise rent from the respective principal defendants. Both the lower courts dismissed the suits brought by the plaintiff, principally on the ground that the title of the plaintiff has been existinguished by forfeiture of the lease and the plaintiff had, therefore, no right to realise rent from the principal defendant of each suit.

2. In support of all these appeals the main contention put forward by the learned Government Advocate is that in view of the provisions of Sec.111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act there should be a notice in writing given by the Sasaram Municipality to the plaintiff for the forfeiture of the lease, and since the lower appellate court has come to a finding of fact that no such notice has been given by the Sasaram Municipality in terms of Sec.111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act, the title of the plaintiff as lessee still subsisted and the plaintiff was entitled to get a decree for rent from the respective defendants. The opposite view point is Put forward by learned Counsel on behalf of the respondents. It was submitted that in view of the express terms of the registered lease, dated the 20th October, 1944, there was an automatic forfeiture of the lease as soon as there was non-payment of rent", and the title of the plaintiff as lessee had terminated with effect from July, 1953, when the plaintiff discontinued payment of rent to the Sasaram Municipality. Reference was made in this connection to the following portion of the lease, exhibit 3:-

-

"Basurat baki rahne keraya mazkoor mokir fariq aual ko akhtiyar kamil hai wo hoga ke zare baqaya mai sud fisad 61/4 rupeya salana bajarie bil notice wo warrant khah bazarie Public Demand Recovery Act ya bajarie charajoi adalat mai kharcha zat wo zaidad mankokir farik doem wo warisan kaem mokamian farik doem se wasul kar lenge our thika mazkoor bela notice fix kar denge wo bela lehaj maiyad bandobasti khud sir dakhal kar lenge."

3. It was, however, contended by the learned Government Advocate that even though there was an express provision in the registered lease that there would be forfeiture for non-payment of rent even without notice on the part of the lessor, the requirement of Sec.111(g-) of the Transfer of Property Act cannot be waived, and in the absence of notice in writing given by the Sasaram Municipality the title of the plaintiff as a lessee continued. In our opinion the argument put forward by the learned Government Advocate is well founded and must be accepted as correct. Sec.111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act is in the following terms:-

-

"111. A lease of immovable property determines * * * * * *

(g) by Forfeiture; that is to say, (1) in case the lessee breaks an express condition which provides that on breach thereof the lessor may re-enter or (2) in case the lessee renounces his character as such by setting up a title in a third person or by claiming title in himself; or (3) the lessee is adjudicated an insolvent and the lease provides that the lessor may re-enter on the happening of such event: and in any of these cases the lessor or his transferee gives notice in writing to the lessee of his intention to determine the lease.

It is also important to notice that Sec.111(f), has been amended by the Amending Act 20 of 1929 and the words gives notice in writing to the lessee of have been substituted for the words "does some act s