Issuance of notice u/s 106 not necessary in case of expiry of the period of lease.

1. Both the counsel represented that the question involved in the second appeal is whether there is proper notice of termination of lease. As that is the only question that arises for consideration, the counsel on both sides requested the appeal itself may be disposed finally. Hence the appeal is taken up for final disposal.

2. The respondent herein filed the suit O.S.No.199 of 1992 seeking an order of injunction restraining the appellant herein from conducting any public auction regarding suit premises or otherwise from disturbing her possession of the suit premises till she is evicted under the procedure established by law. It is her case that originally her father took the property on lease as early as 20.3.1969 on an annual rent of Rs.500 from one S.L.Kittain. After taking the land on lease, her father constructed a rice mill by spending more than Rs.30,000. After the death of her father, she took the property on lease from the owner for 10 years from 16.4.1975 and after the expiry of the lease she continued to be the lessee by paying the rent. Presently the respondent is paying a rent of Rs.1,000 per annum. The lease is an annual one and further is for manufacturing process and as such the lease has to be terminated by the appellant temple by issuing six months notice as prescribed under Sec.106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Moreover she is entitled for the City Tenants’ Protection Act.

3. The appellant herein filed a written statement contending that the suit property belongs to the temple. The said Kittaiya Gounder leased the land to one Krishna Gounder in the year 1969 only as a trustee of the temple. The lease is not a vacant site alone and as such the appellant is not entitled for the protection of the City Tenants’ Protection Act. Since the lease deed is an unregistered one, the lessee is hot entitled to claim any benefit under the invalid document. The lease is only a monthly one and hence the lease is liable to be terminated on 15 days notice. The suit property shall fetch a sum of Rs.2,000 by way of monthly rent at the prevailing market rate. The appellant is simply squatting on the property by paying the low marginal rent. The notice of termination of lease issued to the appellant is perfectly valid.

4. Though the appellant has claimed the benefit under the City Tenants’ Protection Act, she has not chosen to file any petition for such benefits.

5. On behalf of the plaintiff-respondent she alone was examined and some of the receipts had been produced. Similarly on behalf of the defendant appellant only the then trustee had been examined. After considering the evidence, the trial court dismissed the suit by its judgment and decree dated 20.4.1994.

6. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent preferred an appeal in A.S.No.46 of 1994 on the file of Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam. The Subordinate Judge allowed the appeal by his judgment and decree dated 25.3.1996 and the present second appeal has been filed by the appellant.

7. At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law have been framed:

(1) Whether or not the lower Appellate Court committed an illegality in treating a lease which is in violation of the mandatory provisions of Sec.34 of H.R. & C.E. Act as valid.

(2) Whether or not the lower Appellate Court gravely erred in holding that possession of the tenant/respondent is lawful as against the true owner and the tenancy has to be terminated in accordance with law even though the lease on which the tenant seeks to sustain her possession is null and void.

(3) Whether or not the lower Appellate Court erred in holding that the notice terminating the monthly tenancy should end with 20th day of the month as the original tenancy was said to be 20.3.1969 in spite of the appellant asserting that the monthly tenancy is according to calendar month, or in the absence of any lease deed.

After hearing the arguments, the following substantial question of law arises for consideration:

Whether the re