When a lease is terminated by efflux of time under Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, no fresh notice under Section 106(1) is required to be given to the tenant, and the landlord can exercise the right of re-entry.

This second appeal under Section 100 read with Order XLII Rule 1 CPC filed by the additional second respondent/appellant is against the judgment and decree dated 25/11/2023 in A.S.No.5/2022 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Attingal, which appeal in turn is against the judgment and decree dated 30/10/2021 in O.S.No.157/2017 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Varkala. The parties and the documents will be referred to as described in O.S.No.157/2017. 2. The suit was for eviction and realisation of arrears of rent. According to the plaintiff, the plaint schedule property having an extent of 1.6 ares of property including a shop therein was purchased by him as per sale deed no. 240/2007 of SRO, Kavalayoor. The property was let out to the defendant who had been conducting a tea shop in the shop room even before the plaintiff purchased the property. After the plaintiff purchased the property, the parties entered into an agreement by which the plaint schedule property was rented out to the defendant for a period of 11 months from 27/02/2007 for a monthly rent of ₹3,500/-. The defendant paid an amount of ₹50,000/- as security to the plaintiff.

The rent deed was being renewed every 11 months. In September 2015, the rental agreement was discontinued and the plaintiff demanded vacant possession of the property. The defendant then filed O.S.No.437/2016 before the Munsiff Court, Varkala and obtained an order of injunction against the plaintiff. The plaintiff caused to issue a lawyer notice directing the defendant to vacate the schedule premises. However, the defendant has failed to accede to the demand and hence the suit claiming eviction and arrears of rent from October 2015.

3.The defendant filed written statement contending that the lease in respect of the plaint schedule property is a permanent one and therefore he is entitled to continue as a tenant during his life time. There is no arrears of rent and hence the plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for.

4.Necessary issues were framed by the trial court. The parties went to trial on the basis of the aforesaid pleadings. PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A9 were marked on the side of the plaintiff. DW1 was examined on the side of the defendant. No documentary evidence was produced by the defendant.

5.On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, the trial court dismissed the suit on 2 grounds - (i) that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain a suit for eviction and that proceedings will have to be initiated under the relevant provisions of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 and (ii) that no proper notice under Section 106 (1) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (the TP Act) had been issued terminating the tenancy. Aggrieved, the plaintiff filed A.S.No.5/2022. During the pendency of the appeal, the sole defendant passed away and hence as per order in I.A.No.2/2022, his mother, got herself impleaded as the additional second respondent in the appeal. The first appellate court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court and allowed the appeal by which the prayer for eviction and arrears of rent has been allowed. The additional second respondent, the legal representative of the sole defendant, has come up in second appeal.

6.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 7.It was submitted by the learned counsel for the additional second respondent/the legal representative of the sole defendant, that there has been non compliance of Order XX Rule 5 CPC by the first appellate court. The trial court had found that a process of manufacturing was taking place in the tea shop being conducted by the defendant in the tenanted premises and hence as per Section 106 (1) six months notice ought to have been given by the plaintiff. Such a notice had not been given and hence there has been no termination of the tenancy in respect of the plaint schedule property. Relying on the dictum in Joseph @ Kochu v