The judgment emphasizes the application of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, highlighting the balance between the landlord's right to recover possession and the protection of the tenant's interest.

1. This second appeal is filed by the defendant, inveighing the judgement and decree 14.6.2010 passed by the Principal Sub Court, Mayiladuthurai, in A.S.No.74 of 2009 confirming the judgement and decree dated 26.10.2009 passed by the Additional District Munsif Court, Mayiladuthurai, in O.S.No.48 of 2009, which was filed for recovery of possession.

2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

3. A recapitulation and 'resume' of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus:

(i) The respondent herein, as plaintiff, filed the suit seeking the following reliefs: "(a) to direct the defendant to put the plaintiff in possession of the suit property."

(ii) The defendant filed the written statement resisting the suit.

(iii) Whereupon the trial Court framed the relevant issues. On the plaintiff's side, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. The defendant examined himself as D.W.1 along with D.W.2 and marked Exs.B1 and B2.

(iv) Ultimately, the trial Court decreed the suit, as against which, the appeal was filed for nothing but to be dismissed by the first appellate Court, confirming the judgement and decree of the trial Court.

4. Challenging and impugning the judgements and decrees of the Courts below, this second appeal is focussed by the defendant on various grounds and also suggesting the following substantial questions of law:

"a)Whether the Courts below erred in law in holding notice to quit under Sec.106 of Transfer of Property Act is proper and valid when admittedly the tenancy between parties was not terminated?

b) Whether the Courts below erred in decreeing the suit for ejectment on the ground that filing of plaint would amount to termination of tenancy?

c) Whether the plaint for ejectment is maintainable when there is no cause of action on the date of filing of suit? Even assuming filing of suit and service of suit summons would amount to termination of tenancy, whether subsequent accrual of alleged cause of action would cure the inherent defect on the date of presentation of plaint?"(extracted as such)

5. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant would mainly focus his attention on only one point that Ex.A1-the termination notice was not in accordance with law for the reason that there is no version in it to the effect that the lease emerged between the plaintiff and the defendant was terminated; in the absence of such specification in the termination notice, by no stretch of imagination, it could be taken that the said Ex.A1 satisfied the ingredients of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Courts below, according to him, have not taken into consideration the said point.

6. I hark back to the principles as found embodied in the following judgement of the Honourable Apex Court:

(2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases 545 – HERO VINOTH (MINOR) VS. SESHAMMAL;

"24. ........(iii) The general rule is that the High Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below. But it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well-recognised exceptions are where (i) the courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence; (ii) the courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously; or (iii) the courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof. When we refer to 'decision based on no evidence', it not only refers to cases where there is a total dearth of evidence, but also refers to any case, where the evidence, taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding."

and the other precedents emerged in this regard.

(ii) (2011) 1 SCC 673 [Vijay Kumar Talwar v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi], certain excerpts from it would run thus:

"19. It is manifest from a bare reading of the section that an appeal to the High Court from a decision of the Tribunal lies only when a substantial ques