A notice to quit under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act must terminate the tenancy of the entire accommodation occupied by the tenant. It cannot be split up.

1. THIS is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment and recovery of sums of money by awards of arrears of rent, damages and Bhumi Bhawan Kar and other taxes. The suit property is on the ground floor of premises No. 10/174, Khalasi Lane Kanpur, with open space by the side of the room and some space on the first floor of the premises. The case so far as ejectment is concerned is confined to the room and the open space by its side. The plaintiff's case was that the defendant was a tenant of the room in question at a monthly rent of Rs. 10/-per month and that he had defaulted in the payment of rent since 26-12- 1969. As regards the space by the side of the room it was alleged that the defendant had unauthorisedly taken possession and encroached upon a space 6' X 8' on the open varandah by the side of the room and was using it as a kitchen, without the permission of the plaintiff which was an illegal and unauthorised act on his part for which he was liable to pay damages and was also liable to eviction there from. As regards the space on the first floor it was alleged that the defendant was using it in collusion with one Sunder Lal Nishad, who was its occupier. The plaintiff claimed damages for use of this part of the accommodation also. This part of the case was not canvassed before us in second appeal so we shall confine ourselves to the claim for ejectment of the defendant from the room and the open space by its side, and for the arrears of rent and damages and recovery of certain taxes claimed. The plaintiff's case was that the defendant was liable to pay Bhumi Bhawan Kar and other taxes of the accommodation which he had not paid. He was alleged to be in arrears of rent for the room leased out to him since 26th December, 1969. As regards the encroachment made, the plaintiff's case was that he had paid no damages for use and occupation and that he was liable to pay the same at the rate of Rs. 20/- per month. He was also alleged to be liable to pay Bhumi Bhawan Kar and the excess water charges.

2. BY a notice dated 10th October, 1970 the plaintiff required the defendant to pay the arrears of rent and the amounts claimed thereunder by way of damages for use and occupation and the Bhumi Bhawan Kar and the excess water charges within a month of the receipt of that notice and to vacate the premises thereafter. This notice was served on the defendant on 13th December, 1970. The plaintiff's case was that the defendant had despite the service of the notice not paid the arrears due nor had he vacated the premises as required of him. Hence the suit.

The defence delivered was that the defendant was a tenant of the room as well as the open space by its side which he was alleged to be using as a kitchen and that he was not an unauthorised occupant thereof. It was further pleaded that the defendant had paid the rent due by a money order which the plaintiff had refused hence the same was deposited in court under Section 7-C of Act No. Ill of 1947 and the defendant was not a defaulter in the payment of rent. The agreed rent of Rs. 10/-per month was alleged to be inclusive of the Bhumi Bhavan Kar and hence the defendant was not liable to pay anything in addition to the rent agreed. As regards the water charges it was alleged that the defendant was not liable to pay the same.

3. THE trial court decreed the suit for ejectment and the arrears claimed on the finding that the defendant was a tenant of the room in question as also the space by its side ; that since he had defaulted in the payment of rent for a period over three months and had not paid the same inspite of the demand notice he was liable to ejectment and to pay the arrears claimed. The agreed rent of Rs. 10/- was not found inclusive of the Bhumi Bhawan Kar hence the defendant was liable to pay the same also in addition to the arrears of rent. The defendant's plea that he had tendered the rent to the plaintiff was not found proved and the deposit under Section 7-C