The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity of the termination notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.

1. The appellant, who is the defendant in the original suit filed this second appeal against the Decree and Judgment dated 14.07.2003 made in A.S. No. 19 of 2003 on the file of Principal District Court, Nagapatinam, confirming the Decree and Judgment dated 27.12.2002 made in O.S. No. 44 of 1999 on the file of District Munsif Court, Nagapatinam.

2. For the sake of convenience, the defendant in the original suit is referred as appellant and the plaintiff in the original suit is referred as respondent hereafter.

3. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment and directed the appellant to deliver the vacant possession after dismantling the superstructure. Briefly the case of the respondent is that the suit property is a wakf property and the husband of the respondent is present Trustee of the wakf property and the respondent is his power agent. The appellant executed a lease agreement on 02.10.1982 in favour of the respondent and accordingly, the respondent is land owner and the appellant is tenant and the tenancy commenced on 02.10.1982 and the monthly rent was fixed at Rs.40/- payable on or before 05th of succeeding month. The appellant has also paid a sum of Rs.500/- as advance. According to the respondent, the appellant was in arrears of rent for three months as on 30.04.1985 and hence, O.S. No. 245 of 1985 was filed for recovery of arrears of rent and for ejectment, but the suit was dismissed as notice to quit was not in proper. As against the dismissal of the above said suit, the first appeal in A.S. No. 13/89 was filed and it was partly allowed in respect of claim of arrears of rent alone. The respondent had issued proper notice on 19.06.1998, terminating the tenancy with effect from 02.09.1998, but, the appellant sent a reply, containing false averments through his counsel on 30.11.1998. Further, the appellant has sub-leased the suit property to another person and therefore, the appellant is liable to evict from the suit property after dismantling the super-structure, since the appellant is not entitled to the benefits of City Tenants Protection Act and also on the ground of arrears of rent. Hence, the suit.

4. The appellant/defendant filed written statement, in which, it is stated that the respondent’s husband, namely Hameed Sultan, in the year 1988, offered to give 300 sq.ft., property to the appellant as lease and orally he informed as it is a trust property, and it was in his possession. Believing the same, the appellant took the 300 sq.ft., and entered into an agreement to pay Rs.40/- as rent per month, for the site and also paid Rs.500/- as advance. Apart from the above said amount, the appellant has paid Rs.30,000/- to the respondent’s husband. The appellant regularly paid the rent from 02.10.1982 to May 1985. The tenancy agreement was made only for a period of 11 months from 02.10.1982 and hence, the respondent agreed to continue the tenancy right and also the respondent was receiving rent given on 05.05.1985. The respondent wanted to vacate the appellant, so as to give other person to run a shop and hence the respondent did not accept the rent for the months (i.e.,) June, July and August 1985. The appellant sent the rent by way of money order for Rs.120/-, but it was refused by the respondent and returned. Further, the appellant has paid arrears of rent of Rs.1,000/- by Demand Draft to the respondent’s counsel as per direction of the Appellate Court in A.S. No. 77 of 1996. Further, during the pendency of the suit, the respondent entered into the suit site and built up a hotel and running a business. Therefore, the appellant automatically shifted to other area for which he has not executed any agreement with the respondent. The boundaries for suit property also wrongly given and hence, the suit is not maintainable.

5. The trial court, on the basis of the above said pleadings framed two issues. On the side of the respondent/plaintiff examined one witness and marked five documents as Exs.A1 to A5 and on