The judgment established the importance of contractual provisions in determining the requirement of quit notice under S.106 of the Transfer of Property Act, and the applicability of the amended provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act to pending cases.

1. The appellant is the defendant in a suit for recovery of plaint schedule item 1 with arrears of rent and future rent and for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from entering upon plaint schedule item 2, filed by the respondent-plaintiff.

2. On 1-3-1962 plaint schedule item 1 consisting of 30 cents of land was taken by the appellant-defendant on an agreement to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 100/- for a period of three years for the purpose of installing a saw mill, and Ext. P1 rent deed was executed by the defendant to evidence the transaction. In terms of Ext P1. the defendant was to construct the necessary buildings to install the machinery for conducting the saw mill and pay rent every month without default; in case of default, the appellant-defendant had to pay interest on the arrears of rent at 12% per annum and surrender the property, demolishing and removing the building on expiry of the period without dispute. It is averred in the plaint that the defendant had paid rent upto and inclusive of May 1965 and the plaintiff had passed receipts to him for such payments; rent from June 1965 was in arrears; a plot of 10cents, touching the property given on rent to the defendant, was in the possession of the plaintiff, but the defendant had put logs of timber in the property including the plot in the possession of the plaintiff, and had destroyed the fence separating the properties causing inconvenience to the plaintiff and members of his family; hence prayer for injunction restraining the defendant from trespassing upon plaint schedule item 2 besides recovery of possession of item 1 with arrears of rent.

3. In his written-statement the defendant raised various contentions, stating inter alia that he had invested Rs 30,000/-for the mill and the machinery; the plaintiff bad agreed to allow him to conduct the mil) for as many years as he wanted; the defendant was a tenant entitled to fixity of tenure; and in case of eviction he was entitled to value of improvements.

4. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that there was no quit notice as required under S.106 of the Transfer of Property Act, without deciding the other issues on their merits. The 1st appellate court, in appeal, set aside the decree and judgment of the trial court holding that no notice under S.106 of the Transfer of Property Act was required in the nature of the transaction; and also holding that the defendant was not entitled to any relief under S.106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. It is aggrieved by the decision of the 1st appellate court that this second appeal has been preferred by the defeated defendant. No contention was advanced before me with respect to that part of the decree of the trial court injecting the appellant-defendant from trespassing upon item II in the plaint schedule.

5. On behalf of the appellant it was submitted by the counsel that the 1st appellate court was in error in holding that no notice to quit under S.106 of the Transfer of Property Act was required in this case. According to him Ext. P1 'vadaka chit' was for a period of 3 years, which expired on the 23th February 1965, and thereafter by accepting the rent and passing receipts for such payments, for the months of March, April and May 1965, the plaintiff had consented to the defendant holding over the property on the same terms as stipulated in Ext. P1, and therefore the tenancy created under Ext. P1 deed continued even after the 28th day of February 1965. It is therefore his submission that the plaintiff could not have brought a suit without terminating the tenancy by the issue of a proper and sufficient notice according to the provisions of S.106 of the T. P Act.

6. The counsel for the respondent-plaintiff on the other hand contended that there was a stipulation in Ext. P1 deed itself that incase rent was kept in arrears, the plaintiff was entitled to evict the appellant-defendant, and that it amounted to a contract to the contrary so much so that the provis