A suit for ejectment of a tenant is not maintainable in the absence of a valid notice terminating the tenancy, as required under Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

C. M. LODHA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a defendants second appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment.

( 2 ) IT is common ground between the parties that the defendant took on lease from the plaintiff a plot of land bearing AMG No. 21/310, situated outside Delhi Gate, ajmer on a monthly rent of Rs. 25/- by lease deed Ex. 1 dated 26-6-1958. The period of lease was one year commencing from 1-4-1958 to 31-3-1959. It is also the admitted case of the parties that the defendant continued as tenant by holding over even after the expiry of the term fixed by the lease. The plaintiffs case is that the defendant had paid rent only upto 31-10-1963. It is further alleged that the plaintiff served a notice dated 25-9-1964 on the defendant calling upon the latter to vacate the premises by 31-10-1964 or on any other date on which the defendant thought his tenancy expired. A copy of this notice has been placed on the record and marked Ex. 2. The present suit was filed by the Municipal Council on 3-2-1965 asking for ejectment of the defendant from the premises in question as also for a decree of Rs. 320/- on account of arrears of rent/mesne profits.

( 3 ) THE defendant resisted the plaintiffs suit and pleaded inter alia that the suit was not maintainable in absence of a valid notice terminating the defendants tenancy. Certain other pleas were also taken which it is however not necessary to reproduce here as the decision of this appeal turns solely on the question of validity of the notice of ejectment.

( 4 ) AFTER recording the evidence produced by the parties the Munsif, Aimer (Rest)decreed the plaintiffs suit for ejectment as well as for arrears of rent as prayed. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court the defendant filed appeal, but the same was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge, Ajmer by his judgment dated 3-9-1970. Consequently, the defendant has come in second appeal to this Court.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has urged that the view of the learned additional Civil Judge that the suit for ejectment was maintainable even in absence of a valid notice is erroneous. The necessity for taking this view arose before the learned Additional Civil Judge on account of the fact that the notice Ex. 2 was found by him to be not a valid and proper notice as it had been given by one Shri jyoti Swaroop Gupta, Advocate without mentioning therein that he was giving and signing- this notice on behalf of the Municipal Council, Aimer or that he had been authorised to do so on its behalf.

( 6 ) THE first point which, therefore, calls for determination is whether the suit is maintainable without serving a notice of termination of tenancy ? In this connection the learned Additional Civil Judge has relied on Clause (7) of the agreement of lease Ex. 1, which reads as follows:-

"that if the lessee commits a breach of any of the aforesaid conditions or fails to pay rent for one month, the lessor shall be entitled to determine the lease at any time without giving any notice and shall have power to re-enter plots of land and the lessee shall not be entitled to claim damages, if any, on this ground. "

Thus it is a case of determination of lease of immovable property by forfeiture, that is to say, in case the lessee breaks an express condition which provides that on breach thereof, the lessor may re-enter. In this connection reference may be made to Section 111 (g) of the Transfer of Property Act which provides that lease of immovable property determines by forfeiture, that is to say, (i) in case the lessee breaks an express condition which provides that on breach thereof, the lessor may re-enter; or. . . . . . . . . . . . and in (any of these cases) the lessor or his transferee gives notice in writing to the lessee of his intention to determine the lease.

( 7 ) IT would be crystal clear from a bare perusal of Section 111 (g) of the Transfer of property Act that for determination of lease by forfeiture it is obligatory for the lessor