Hon’ble Mrs. Poonam Srivastava, J.—Heard Sri M.A. Qadeer learned Counsel for the revisionist and Sri Hari Ashok Kumar learned Counsel appearing for the caveator/opposite party No. 1.

2. This is a revision under Section 25 of Provincial Small Causes Court Act against the judgment and decree dated 7.12.2005 passed by the Ist Additional District Judge, Court No. 3/Judge Small Causes Court, Allahabad in SCC Suit No. 32 of 2004, Vishnu Sahai Verma and another v. R.S. Negi.

3. A suit was instituted by the landlord for decree of eviction and decree of Rs. 4,877/- (Rupees four thousand eight hundred seventy seven) towards water tax pendente lite future damages at the rate of Rs. 200/- per day. The plaintiff/opposite parties were landlord of house No. 338, Mumfordganj, Allahabad, which was let out to the revisionist on monthly rent of Rs. 2,300/- (Rupees two thousand three hundred) excluding water tax and electricity. The suit was instituted after giving a notice dated 2.8.2004. According to the plaintiffs, they terminated the tenancy by means of the aforesaid notice and the revisionist was required to vacate the house in question on expiry of notice and on failure to do so, the suit was filed before the Judge Small Causes Court. The provision of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable since the rent was more than Rs. 2000/- (Rupees two thousand). The revisionist contested the suit by filing his written statement. The revisionist disputed that the water tax was not included in the rate of rent however, Rs. 2,300/- (Rupees two thousand three hundred) towards rent including water tax was admitted by the tenant/revisionist in paragraph 4 of the written statement. The revisionist raised objection regarding notice that it was illegal. The Court below framed three issues. Issue No. 1 was regarding non-payment of water tax. Issue No. 2 was whether the defendant’s tenancy has been terminated and the plaintiffs are entitled for possession of the disputed accommodation? Issue No. 1 was decided against the plaintiffs/landlord. The Court below came to a conclusion that the tenant was not liable to pay water tax separately, therefore, the revisionist was not entitled to pay water tax whatsoever. Issue No. 2 was decided in favour of the plaintiffs. The Court came to a conclusion that the tenancy has been terminated by means of a valid notice and, therefore, the tenant was liable to handover vacant possession to the landlord/opposite parties. Accordingly, the suit was decreed by means of the impugned judgment.

4. Sri M.A. Qadeer, Advocate, has submitted that the tenancy was not determined by means of the notice and in absence of express assertion in the notice, the tenancy was not determined. It cannot be said that the landlord determined the tenancy and the suit was wrongly decreed in favour of the landlord. Sri Qadeer has annexed copy of the notice as Annexure 1 to the affidavit filed in support of the stay application. Notice consists of six paragraph and in the concluding part of the notice states ‘that this legal notice is being given with a view that you will handover vacant possession to my client within thirty days and on failure to do so, you will be liable to pay Rs. 200/- per day as damages.’ Notice further states that in the event vacant possession is not handed over within the prescribed period, he will institute a suit and the tenant will be liable to pay cost of the suit. Learned Counsel has emphatically argued that there is no positive assertion stating therein that the tenancy of the revisionist has been determined. Section 111 Transfer of Property Act provides various modes of determination of lease. Section 111 (h) of the Act is quoted below :

"Section 111 (h)—On the expiration of a notice to determine the lease, or to quit, or of intention to quit, the property leased, duly given by one party to the other."

5. Thus, where the lease is determined by means of a notice by the lessor, it has to expressly denote his intention tha