The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of lease termination under Section 111(a) and the requirement of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 in determining the nature of the tenancy and the landlord's right to evict the tenant.

A.B. Pal, J.

1. By this second appeal the Appellant has called in question the correctness and validity of the judgment dated 10.9.2003 passed by learned Additional District Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in Title Appeal No. 2 of 2002 on the ground of res judicata and limitation.

2. The material facts giving rise to the present proceeding are as follows:

The Appellant herein faced a proceeding as Defendant in Title Suit No. 2 of 1996 instituted by the Respondents herein, who are wife, sons and daughters of late Tambi Singha. The suit was for eviction of the Appellant being a tenant under them. Tambi Singha became the owner of certain lands including the suit land by way of purchase by registered sale deed executed by Chandra Badan Singha. Being approached by the Appellant herein, Tambi Singha leased out the suit land to the Appellant by a registered lease deed dated 10.6.1957 for a period of five years at an annual rent of Rs. 200/- only. The Appellant took possession of the land, constructed dwelling huts and motor workshop, but stopped payment of rent after the initial payment of Rs. 200/- for the first year. Tambi Singha filed Money Suit No. 28 of 1961 and Money Suit No. 56 of 1962 in the Court of learned Munsiff, Dharmanagar, North Tripura for realization of the rents and succeeded on 30.3.1962 and 31.5.1968, when both the suits were decreed. Aggrieved, the Appellant preferred Money Appeal No. 17 of 1962 and Money Appeal No. 6 of 1968, but lost. Thereafter, the wife of the Appellant herein Smti Tambi Nou Devi filed Title Suit No. 55 of 1967 in the Court of learned Munsiff, Dharmanagar for cancellation of the decrees passed in Money Suit Nos. 28 of 1961 and 56 of 1962, but the suit was dismissed. Tambi Singha filed Title Suit No. 66 of 1962 for eviction of the Appellant herein, which was decreed by the learned Munsiff, Dharmanagar after holding that the lease was determined under Section 111(a) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (herein after referred to as the Act), i.e. by efflux of the time limited by the lease document and therefore, no notice under Section 106 of the Act was necessary. It was further held that the Appellant herein took lease of the suit land from Tambi Singha deciding thereby the relationship between Tambi Singha and Braja Mohan Sharma with regard to the suit property. An appeal was filed assailing the said decision of the learned Munsiff, which was however, reversed by the learned appellate Court in Title Appeal No. 81 of 1973 after holding that the registered lease document being not signed by both the lessor and the lessee as required by Section 107 of the Act, the said lease cannot be said to be a lease for a term exceeding one year and it must be taken to be a monthly lease. Being a monthly tenancy, the said appellate Court held, Section 106 of the said Act comes into play, which provides that such a tenancy, which is not for agricultural or manufacturing purposes, is terminable on the part of either lessor or lessee by fifteen days' notice expiring with the end of a month of the tenancy. Thus the finding of the learned Munsiff that no notice under Section 106 of the Act was required as the tenancy had expired by efflux of time having been reversed the appeal of the Appellant herein was allowed. After the said judgment by the learned appellate Court on 19.1.1965 long period was allowed to pass silently and after about a period of 20 years, the legal heirs of Tambi Singha, the Respondents herein, filed Title Suit No. 2 of 1996 after issuing notice under Section 106 of the Act on 11.7.1995 proceeding from the position settled by the appellate Court that the lease is a monthly tenancy and the Appellant herein being the tenant under the Respondents, who issued notice under Section 106 of the Act, the lessee is liable to be evicted on the ground that he did not pay the rent for the entire period except the initial year, which is the admitted position. Several other issues were framed by the