Notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act is not necessary in a case governed by provisions of Section 111(g) of Transfer of Property Act.

1. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee in O.S. No. 34 of I989, dated 16.8.1990, the defendant has filed the above Appeal.

2. The averments made in the plaint are as follows:

(i) The plaintiff is the owner of the `A' schedule property measuring to an extent of 25 cents in survey number 312/A/1, which is situated in Thiruneermalai Village, Saidapet Taluk. The plaintiff leased out a portion of the said property to the defendant under Ex.A-2 lease deed, dated 5.6.1986 for rent for a period of five years. The condition laid down in the deed for payment of rent is that the defendant has to pay Rs.2,000 p.m. and for the next two years Rs.2.500 p.m. and for the last one year Rs.3,000 p.m. Then condition laid down in para 3 of the said lease deed is that if the rent is not paid by the defendant for a continuous period of three months, the lessor is entitled to take the possession of the property from the defendant determining the tenancy and in such event, no notice of termination is necessary. Since, the defendant has to paid the agreed rent to the plaintiff for nearly 10 months, the plaintiff issued a notice under Ex. A-3 on 10.6.1988 stating that the defendant was in arrears for ten months and that the plaintiff as per the conditions laid down in para 3 of the lease deed determined the tenancy asking the defendant to vacate the premises and deliver the possession of the same. Thereafter, the defendant paid a sum of Rs.20,000 by way of cheques, however, all the cheques except one were dishonoured and hence the plaintiff insisted the defendant to pay the balance amount. Thereafter, the defendant paid the amount. Further, the defendant committed default in payment of rent to the plaintiff for the period from 1.8.1988 to 31.11.1988 and hence, the plaintiff again issued a rejoinder notice dated 20.12.1988 under Ex.A-5 asking the defendant to deliver the possession after vacating the same. Since the plaintiff determined the tenancy of the defendant by issuing a notice under Ex.A-3, dated 10.6.1988, the defendant is liable to pay damages of Rs.12,500 at the rate of Rs.2,500 p.m. from 1.7.1988 to 30.11.1988 and he is also liable to pay Rs.8,700 as damages for use and occupation from 1.12.1988 to 27.1.1989. Hence, the plaintiff filed the said Suit for the following relief’s:

a. To direct the defendant to deliver vacant possession of the ‘B' schedule mentioned property.

b. To direct the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.21,000 as past damages for use and occupation of the ‘B' schedule property.

c. To pass a direction for an enquiry into the question of future mesne profits from the date of plaint till the date of recovery of possession of ‘B' schedule property.

3. Denying the averments made in the plaint, the defendant has filed the written statement, wherein, it is stated that the defendant never committed default in payment of rent in violation of the conditions laid down in Ex.A-2 lease deed, dated 5.6.1986.

4. After the conclusion of the trial, the learned Subordinate Judge on the basis of oral and documentary evidence decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff.

5. Heard both sides.

6. The point that arises for deciding this Appeal is that whether the notice dated 20.12.1988 issued by the plaintiff to the defendant determining the tenancy is a valid one or not.

7. Whether the defendant is liable to deliver the property to the plaintiff on the basis of the determination of the tenancy.

8. It is an admitted fact that the plaintiff has executed a lease deed dated 5.6.1986 under Ex.A-2 agreeing to lease out the schedule mentioned property to the defendant for five years.

9. As per the conditions laid down in the said lease dead, the defendant has to pay a sum of Rs.48,000 for the period from 1.6.1986 to 31.5.1988.

10. It is an admitted fact that the defendant has not paid the rent for 10 months. On the date of issuance of notice under Ex.A-3, dated 10.6.1988, the defendant was in arrears of Rs.