The amended provision in Section 106(3) of the Transfer of Property Act applies to pending suits and proceedings, and a notice under Section 106, even if allegedly defective, would not be invalidated under the amended provision.

The defendant is the appellant. The respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.256 of 1989 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Udumalpet, for recovery of possession and for rent. The learned District Munsif by decree and judgment dated 12.07.1995, dismissed the suit. Challenging the same, the respondent/plaintiff filed A.S.No.75 of 1996 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Udumalpet. The learned Subordinate Judge, by decree and judgment dated 010. 1999, allowed the appeal thereby setting aside the decree and judgment of the trial Court. The First Appellate Court granted three months time for the appellant/defendant to hand over possession to the respondent/plaintiff and in respect of the arrears of rent, the First Appellate Court gave liberty to the respondent/plaintiff to approach the trial Court to withdraw the rent which was deposited during trial of the case. Challenging the same, the appellant/defendant has come forward with this second appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, in the judgment, the appellant shall be referred to as the defendant and the respondent as the plaintiff.

.3. The case of the plaintiff in short is as follows:-

.The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property and the defendant is the tenant. Since, the defendant had fallen in arrears of rent, the plaintiff issued a legal notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of property Act on 20.03.1989 thereby, terminating the tenancy by giving seven clear days notice. The defendant sent a reply dated 30.03.1989 wherein, the defendant has stated that the daughter of the plaintiff had filed a suit in O.S.No.256 of 1989 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Udumalpet for partition and because of the pendency of the said suit, the defendant could not pay rent to the plaintiff. However, the defendant further stated that he would pay the rent before the Court in O.S.No.39 of 1989. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the present suit.

.4. The case of the defendant in short is as follows:-

.It is true that the defendant is the tenant. But, it is not correct that the defendant did not pay the rent regularly. Because, the suit in O.S.No.39 of 1989 was filed by the daughter of the plaintiff, and since there was a dispute in respect of the right to collect rent between the plaintiff and her daughter, the defendant could not pay the rent to the plaintiff. The defendant has reiterated that he would pay rent in Court. The notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is defective inasmuch as 30 days time was not granted. So, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

5. Based on the above pleading, the trial Court framed appropriate issues. During trial, on the side of the plaintiff, one Natrayan was examined as P.W.1. On the side of the defendant, he was examined as D.W.1. On the side of the plaintiff as many as eight documents were marked as Exs.A.1 to A.8 and on the side of the defendant, three documents were marked as Exs.B.1 to B.3. Considering both oral and documentary evidence available on record, the trial Court dismissed the suit however, the First Appellate Court has reversed the same. It is the said decree and judgment of the First Appellate Court which is under challenge in this second appeal.

6. While admitting the Second Appeal, this Court has framed the following substantial question of law:-

"Whether the Courts below are right in coming to a conclusion that a notice issued under Ex.A.2 is valid under law, particularly when the time granted in only one week which is against Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act?"

7. Now let me examine the above said substantial question of law.

8. The learned counsel for the defendant would rely on a judgment of a Constitution Bench of the Honble Supreme Court in Mangilal v. Suganchand Rathi (1964 (5) S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports 239) wherein, it has been held that if the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, is defective in the sense, if the required tim