The tenant is the petitioner before me. The landlord-respondent filed an application for eviction of the tenant on the ground of wilful default in "the payment of rent from 16th October, 1962 to 15th December, 1963. The Rent Controller and the appellate authority found that the default in payment of rent is withful, and directed eviction of the petitioner. But the petitioner, however, raised the question of maintainability of the application for eviction on the ground that no notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was given to him terminating the tenancy and in the absence of such notice determining the tenancy, the application was not maintainable and that therefore the orders passed by the Rent Controller and the appellate authority were without jurisdiction. Though this later objection of want of notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was not raised before the Rent Controller, it was pressed into service before the appellate authority. The appellate authority, however, held that the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act XVIII of 1960 is a self-contained Act and that the Supreme Court in Mangilal v. Suganchand 1, did not consider