Lease agreements with clauses allowing eviction can exempt parties from notice requirements under Section 106 of the T.P. Act.

1 One of the substantial questions of law formulated in the second appeal is the following:
".......... Whether the provisions in Ext. A1 provide a clear contract to the contrary which will dispense with a notice as contemplated under S.106 of the Transfer of Property Act to terminate the lease? ....
There is yet another question of law formulated to which I shall refer to, a little later.

2. The brief facts necessary to decide the questions of law raised can be summarised thus: The plaintiff issued the defendant for eviction of a shop room let out to him on the basis of Ext. A1 rent deed, with arrears of rent. Before filing the suit the plaintiff issued Ext. B1 notice dated 23-4-1980 purporting to terminate the tenancy and claiming eviction on various grounds. The postal acknowledgment evidencing the receipt of notice by the defendant is produced as Ext. A2. In the plaint, the plaintiff alleged that there is arrears of rent from March, 1980 onwards and that the shop room is an old one in a dilapidated condition and is required for the purpose of demolition and construction of new buildings in the property. Plaintiffs further alleged that as per the notice issued by him, the tenancy has been duly terminated.

3. Defendant while contesting the suit on several grounds, denied all the material allegations in the plaint including the claim for arrears of rent. The allegations regarding the condition of the shop room and the requirement of the room for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction of the buildings were also specifically denied. Further, the defendant raised a specific contention that Ext. B1 notice issued by the plaintiffs terminating the tenancy in question is not a valid one and as such is insufficient to terminate the tenancy in question. On the basis of the above contentions, the defendant prayed for a dismissal of the suit.

4. Both the courts below on a consideration of the contents of Ext. B1 notice issued by the plaintiffs, have come to the conclusion that the notice issued in the case is insufficient in law to terminate the tenancy, as it is not in accordance with the provisions contained in S.106 of the T.P. Act. Both the courts below have also found that there is no arrears of rent due from the defendant. Even though there was an allegation in the plaint to the effect that the shop room is in a dilapidated condition and a denial of the same in the written statement, there was no positive finding entered by the courts below on that aspect. In view of the concurrent findings that Ext.B1 notice is invalid and. insufficient to terminate the tenancy, both the courts below have dismissed the suit.

5. In this appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the dismissal of the suit as illegal on two grounds. Firstly, the learned counsel has contended that Ext. B1 notice is sufficient in law to terminate the tenancy in accordance with the provisions contained in S.106 of the T.P. Act and as such the dismissal of the suit as if Ext. B1 is insufficient in law to terminate the tenancy is illegal. Secondly, the learned counsel has argued that Ext. A1 lease deed contains several recitals which operates as contract to the contrary sufficient to exclude the applicability of S.106 of the T.P. Act, and as such the courts below have gone wrong in dismissing the suit on the ground that there is no valid termination of the tenancy as per Ext. B1 notice. According to the counsel, before going into the question of sufficiency or