IMPORTANT POINT
The validity of termination of tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is upheld when proper notice is given and the tenant fails to contest the eviction suit.

JUDGMENT

D.Dash, J.

The Appellant, by filing this Appeal under Section-100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code'), has assailed the judgment and decree dated 25.08.2023 and 04.09.2023 respectively passed by the learned District Judge, Khurda-at Bhubaneswar in R.F.A. No.325 of 2022 confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2022 & 03.12.2022 respectively passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, (LR & LTV), Bhubaneswar in Civil Suit No.215 of 2021.

The Respondent as the Plaintiff had filed the suit for eviction of the Appellant (Defendant) from the suit house seeking further relief of realization of arrear house rent and damage. The suit having been decreed, the Appellant being the aggrieved Defendant under the sufferance of the said judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court had carried Appeal under section-96 of the Code. The Appeal has been dismissed. Hence, the present Second Appeal is at the instance of the Defendant who has been unsuccessful before the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court.

2. For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to, as they have been arraigned in the Trial Court.

3. The Plaintiff who is now aged about 80 years has asserted in the plaint that he owns the two storied building over the land under Plot No.305 in Rameswarpatna, Bhubaneswar near Mausima Temple. The two storied building is having pump house and temporary garage. The ground floor of the building comprises of a puja room, store room, three bed rooms, kitchen and two toilets and big verandah, better described in Lot-1 on the schedule of the plaint and it was having in its front a house measuring 17 ft. X 23.5 ft., facing the main road. It was some time in the month of October, 2016; the Defendant approached the Plaintiff to take the said house on rent as tenant. The Plaintiff then inducted the Defendant as a tenant in respect of the said house w.e.f. 01.11.2016 on payment of agreed rent of Rs.16,000/- per month. An agreement to that effect being executed on 31.10.2016, the Defendant advanced a sum of Rs.50,000/- to be kept with the Plaintiff towards security to be refunded after due adjustment towards the damage if any caused to the house during the period of occupation of the Defendant as a tenant. It was agreed that the Defendant would pay the monthly rent was Rs.10,000/- and would bear electricity and water charges separately. The Defendant raised a brick wall by removing iron grill gate fixed on the outer side of the building without knowledge of the Plaintiff. He also demolished the pump house and garage and constructed the house and utilized the northern portion adjoining premises in running his business in the name and style of M/s. Devi Electricals. The Plaintiff having arrived in Bhubaneswar in the month of December, 2016, asked the Defendant for removing the structure and demanded payment of compensation for such illegal demolition of garage and pump house. The Defendant thereafter having requested the Plaintiff to let out the said house on payment of Rs.1200/- per month for a period of three years; with the condition that the cost of construction of the house would be adjusted towards the house rent, the Plaintiff agreed to the same. In this way, as agreed, the arrangement continued for a period of three years. The Plaintiff thereafter terminated the tenancy on expiry of 31.10.2019 and demanded vacant possession of the tenanted premises from the Defendant. However, again on approach of the Defendant, the tenancy continued for one year more with enhancement of monthly rent by 10%. It is said that the Defendant failed to pay the agreed rent in time and therefore, the Plaintiff finally terminated the tenancy on expiry of 31.10.2020 and asked the Defendant to give vacant delivery of the possession of the suit house by paying the arrear rent and damage. That having not been done by the Defendant, the suit came to be filed.

4. Th