S.114 of the Transfer of Property Act, which provides relief against forfeiture for non-payment of rent, is inapplicable to cases where the tenancy is determined by a valid notice to quit under S.106 of the Transfer of Property Act.

1. Thangam Pillai Trust, represented by its trustee Sivaperumal, is the appellant in this second appeal, which is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Sub-ordinate Judge, Madurai, in A.S. No. 203 of 1976. That appeal arose out of a suit instituted in O.S. No. 226 of 1975, District Munsifs Court, Madurai Town, by N.K. N.K.R. Dharma Trust, Madurai, represented by its Managing Trustee N.L.S. Seethalakshmi Animal, the first respondent in this second appeal. In that suit, N.K.N.K.R. Dharma Trust sued for recovery of possession of the property bearing door No. 15-J in Srinivasaperumal Koil Street, Madurai, belonging to it and for recovery of arrears of rent and also for damages for use and occupation. One C. Thangam Pillai was the defendant in that suit. According to the case of N.K.N.K.R. Dharma Trust, the site over which the superstructure bearing door No. 15-J was put up belonged to it and was let out to one S.R. Rajendran for a period of five years under the terms and conditions contained in a rent deed marked as Exhibit A1 dated 20-3-1949. On 20-7-1949, under Exhibit B1, the lessee S.R. Rajendran in turn entered into another rent deed in favour of one Pillani Ammal, wife of Thangam Pillai, in and by which S.R. Rajendran created a sub-lease in her favour. Pursuant to that, Pillani Ammal appears to have put up a superstructure and also died some time in 1965. Thangam Pillai and his daughter were the two legal heirs left behind by Pillani Ammal and under Exhibit B20 dated 26-3-1970, the daughter Sarojini released her interest in the superstructure in favour of her father Thangam Pillai, the defendant in O.S. No. 226 of 1975. Thereafter, under Exhibit B21 dated 30-4-1970, Thangam Pillai executed a deed of trust in and by which he created a trust over the superstructure and constituted himself as a trustee. While matters stood thus, on 7-8-1970, the original lessee S.R. Rajendran surrendered his interest in the site and Thangam Pillai became the lessee and he died on 19-2-1978. Alleging that the tenancy in favour of Thangam Pillai commenced on and from 7-8-1970 by attornment after the surrender by S.R. Rajendran and that he had not paid the rents at all, N.K.N.K.R. Dharma Trust issued a notice under Exhibit A2 dated 27-12-1974 terminating the tenancy in favour of Thangam Pillai and demanded surrender of possession. Since Thangam Pillai did not comply with the demand so made, N.K.N.K.R. Dharma Trust, Madurai, instituted the suit O.S. No. 226 of 1975, District Munsifs Court, Madurai Town, praying for the reliefs set out earlier.

2. Thangam Pillai resisted the suit contending that he was entitled to the benefits of Madras City Tenants Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act,) though it was not clearly stated whether the benefits of S.3 or S.9 of that Act were claimed.

3. Before the trial Court, on behalf of N.K.N.K.R. Dharma Trust, Exhibits A1 to A4 were filed and P.W.1 was examined, while, on behalf of Thangam Pillai, Exhibits B1 to B29 were marked in evidence and he also gave evidence as D.W.1. On a consideration of the oral as well as the documentary evidence, the trial Court found that Thangara Pillai became exclusively the owner of the superstructure and was also the tenant of the vacant site long prior to the coming into force of the Act and, therefore, entitled to the benefits of that Act, that the suit was bad for the nonjoinder of other trustees as parties, that the notice to quit was not valid and, therefore, N.K.N.K.R Dharma Trust was not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for in the suit. On these conclusions, the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by this, N.K.N.K.R. Dharma Trust preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 203 of 1976, Sub Court, Madurai. During the pendency of that appeal, the second respondent herein was impleaded as the second respondent to that appeal. On a re-consideration of the oral as well as the documentary evidence, the learned Subordinate Judge, Madurai, took the view t