A notice to quit a lease must be served in accordance with the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, and a subsequent notice does not waive a previous notice unless it is clear that the landlord intended to abandon the first notice.

( 1 ) THIS Regular Second Appeal has been instituted by the principal defendant in a suit for possession of two plots bearing Nos 22 and 27 situated at Wazir Nagar, Kotia Mubarkpur, New Delhi. The suit is really one for ejectment based on a lease of two vacant plots which had been let out by the plaintiff, Shri. Mehar Chand Kohli to M/s Narang Overseas Private Limited. The agreement shows that plot No. 22 and half of plot no. 27 was covered by the agreement and the rent was Rs. 60. 00per month for one year from 1st August. 1967 to 31st July, 1968. Advance rent was paid for the whole year on 12th August, 1967. At the end of the agreement, the following words occur :-

"this agreement will be renewed after expiry of one year and one month s Notice is necessary for both parties in case of getting the plot vacated. "on the basis of this agreement the plaintiff terminated the lease by giving one month s notice expiring on 31st July, 1968. The tenant did not give up vacant possession and hence the suit. It was claimed by the tenant that the lease should be extended under its terms but the landlord took the stand that the tenancy had been terminated, and hence, no question of extension arose.

( 2 ) THE suit was against the tenant, M/s Narang Overseas Private Limited, and also against some alleged sub-tenants who were defendants Nos. 2 to 4, being Shri Sardul Singh, Shrimati Raj Rani and Shri Baldev Singh, who claimed they held the property in their own right and the plaintiff had no cause of action against them. The trial court held that defendants 2 to 4 were in possession of some other land and hence the suit failed against them. Against defendant No. 1 the suit was decreed.

( 3 ) AN appeal by the tenant, M/s Narang Overseas Private Limited, was heard by Shri M. K. Chawla, then Additional District Judge. The judgment shows that three questions were raised in that appeal. Firstly it was contended that the suit was barred by the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 on the ground that there was some construction on the property. On this point, the Additional District Judge found that undoubtedly the land let out was vacant and hence the Delhi Rent Control Act was not applicable. The second contention was that the suit was premature because the lease agreement showed that the the lease could be renewed. It was claimed that there was in fact a renewal of the lease and one year s further rent was also paid and the cheque for the same had been encashed and, therefore, there was a waiver of the notice. On this point the landlord s defence that the amount had been appropriated towards the damages and not the rent was upheld. On the reasoning, it was held that the tenancy had been rightly terminated and hence the suit was not pre-mature. The third contention was that there was no valid notice terminating the tenancy. On this point, the lower appellate Court held that the notice had been served one month before the date of expiry of the lease and hence there was nothing wrong with the notice. The first defendant has now come before this Court in second appeal.

( 4 ) THE main point urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the lease ,has not been properly terminated. On this question the argument raised has three different facets. Firstly, it is contended that the one month s notice required by the terms of the lease had to be given after the year had expired and not before. The second branch of the argument is that the lease terminated on 1st August, 1968 and not on 31st July, 1968, and therefore, the termination of the lease is not valid under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Lastly, it was urged that there was a subsequent notice by the landlord which in law, waived the previous notice and hence the lower appellate Court was not right in concluding that the tenancy had been terminated.

( 5 ) ON the first point, it was submitted thai the lease should have been terminated not during the first year o