1. A tenant in a Rent Control proceedings is the petitioner before me. R.C.P. No. 56 of 1970 was filed against him seeking eviction on the ground of arrears of rent and bonafide need. The Rent Control court found bonafide need in favour of the respondent and ordered eviction which was confirmed by the appellate authority and the revisional court. This revision challenges the order passed by the District Judge, Ernakulam in R.C.R.P. No. 94 of 1976 directing the petitioner to surrender the building to the respondent.

2. Two important questions are raised by the counsel for the petitioner before me. The first question is that the court below committed an error of jurisdiction in so far as me petition for eviction was not preceded by a valid notice under S.106 of the Transfer of Property Act which according to him is a statutory mandatory requirement, to sustain an Application for eviction. The second point urged is that the bonafide need put forward by the respondent is not really bonafide and is falsified by various circumstances which he brought to my notice during his submissions at the Bar. I shall deal with these two questions separately.

3. Whether a notice under S.106