Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. This is a second appeal filed by the plaintiff under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2004 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 59 of 2003 which in turn arise out of judgment/decree dated 9.6.2003 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 82 of 2002. By impugned judgment/decree, the first appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and in consequence thereof confirmed the judgment/decree of the trial court which had dismissed the plaintiff's suit and decreed the counter claim filed by the defendant against the plaintiff in relation to suit accommodation which had resulted in passing eviction decree against the plaintiff from the suit accommodation.

2. This second appeal was admitted for final hearing on following two substantial questions of law:

1. Whether the tenancy of the appellant can be determined/terminated without service of notice u/s. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act

2. Whether the lease Ext. 'D' can accepted without expert opinion as per provisions of Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and other substantial question of law which should be required for effective decision of the present second appeal at the time of hearing.

3. Facts of the case need mention in brief infra. They lie in a narrow compass.

4. The appellant is the plaintiff whereas the respondent is the defendant. The appellant is the tenant whereas the respondent is the owner/landlord of the suit accommodation.

5. The respondent let out the suit accommodation to the appellant as his tenant. The tenancy was non-residential and the appellant was running his shop in the suit accommodation. According to the respondent, he let out the suit shop to the appellant initially by tenancy agreement dated 3.11.98 on a monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 700 and then executed another tenancy/lease agreement dated 17.7.2000 (Ext. D-1) for a period of one year up to 13.4.2001 on a enhanced monthly rent of Rs. 825.

6. The appellant i.e. tenant however filed a suit out of which this appeal arises against the respondent - landlord for a declaration that he be declared as the monthly tenant of the respondent. He also sought other consequential reliefs against the respondent including some interim reliefs.

7. The respondent filed his written statement denying the plaintiff's claim and also filed counter claim against the appellant seeking his eviction from the suit accommodation. According to the respondent, the tenancy being for a fixed period as per lease deed Ex-D-1, it came to an end by efflux of time on 13.4.2001 and hence appellant's possession in the suit accommodation became that of the trespasser from that date. It was also averred that respondent by quit notice dated 10.6.2001 called upon the appellant to vacate the suit accommodation because according to respondent, it had become dilapidated and needed extensive repairs. The respondent also claimed damages at the rate of Rs. 100 per day from the appellant for wrongful use of the suit accommodation after the expiry of the lease period.

8. The trial court framed several issues. Parties went to trial and adduced evidence. The Trial Court by judgment/decree dated 9.6.2003 dismissed the plaintiff's suit whereas it decreed the defendant's counter claim and accordingly passed the eviction decree against the appellant in relation to the suit accommodation. It was held that appellant is the monthly tenant of the respondent, that lease being for a fixed period by virtue of lease agreement Ext.-D it expired on the due date - 13.4.2001 specified in the lease deed, that appellant had duly signed Ext.-D that no quit notice was required to be given by the respondent to appellant under Section 106 of the Transfer of property Act before filing suit for eviction because the case in question was governed by the provisions of Section 111(a)of the Act and lastly since the Assam Ren