Arun Kumar, J. -- By the impugned judgment the High Court of Rajasthan decided two civil revision petitions. Facts in both the cases are quite similar. The only question involved is about the maintainability of the eviction suits filed by the appellant landlord herein against the respondent tenants in the absence of one month's notice to vacate the suit premises. The landlords instituted eviction petitions against their tenants on the ground of misuse of tenancy premises which had materially affected the premises and in the second case on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord for the business of his son. The rent receipts issued by the landlords in both the cases have a printed condition as per which one month's notice either oral or written is required to be given by the landlord to the tenant and the tenant is obliged to vacate the premises on such notice being given. Relying on the said condition the respondents in both the cases took objection that since the required one month's notice was not given by the landlord, the eviction petition was not maintainable. As a matter of fact, in Jaswant Raj Soni case a notice dated 9.10.1991 was admittedly served by the landlord on the tenant terminating the tenancy with effect from 31.10.1991. The eviction petition was filed on 20.2.1992. The objection is that the notice does not allow thirty clear days before the date of termination of tenancy. In the second case relating to Jabar Lal, the case of the landlord is that he had orally intimated to the tenant to vacate the premises in terms of the condition printed on the rent receipt. An additional fact has to be noticed at this stage with respect to Jabar lal case, that is, there is a rent note executed by the tenant which contains a condition to the following effect:

"...... on being asked to vacate I will vacate on being told to do so after prior intimation of the month"

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. So far as the requirement of issuance of notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act before institution of an eviction petition is concerned, the issue stands concluded as per a seven-Judge Bench decision of this Court in V. Dhanapal Chettiar v. Yesodai Ammal, 1980 JLJ 1 = (1979) 4 SCC 214. It has been held that there is no legal requirement for issuance of a notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act before institution of an eviction petition. Therefore, requirement of notice under section 106 is not necessary. The only point left for decision in this case is whether there was agreement between parties requiring service of one month's notice prior to the institution of an eviction petition. For agreement between the parties, reliance is placed only on a condition printed at the back of the rent receipt issued by the landlords. In our view, it cannot be said on the basis of what is printed on the back side of the rent receipt that the parties had accepted it as a condition of the lease. The rent receipt is a document issued by the landlord acknowledging the receipt of payment of rent by him. Conditions printed at the back of the rent receipt cannot be said to be a conscious decision taken by the parties governing the lease of premises. The terms and conditions of a lease result from conscious decision of parties. Therefore, we are unable to accept that the parties have entered into an agreement about service of one month's notice in advance to vacate the premises before institution of eviction petition.

In Jaswant Raj Soni case, in fact, a notice dated 9.10.1991 was admittedly received by the tenant. The notice terminates the tenancy with effect from 31.10.1991 and calls upon the tenant to vacate the premises after the said date and also calls upon the tenant to pay double the rent for the period after tern1ination of tenancy till vacation of the premises. This notice shows that though the tenancy was terminated by the end of the month, which did not allow a period