Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Notice to Quit under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act - The legal requirement for issuing a valid notice to quit is a crucial procedural step in eviction proceedings. Many judgments emphasize that a proper notice must adhere to the specific provisions of Section 106, including a minimum period of 15 days for month-to-month leases, unless the lease is for a fixed term or other specific circumstances ["Vemuri Varalakshmi VS Kota Sivaprasad - 2023 0 Supreme(AP) 718"] ["Vijay Educational Society VS Narra Ravindra Prasad, Chandra Sekhar Rao - Andhra Pradesh"] ["Pasumarthi Veera Bhadra Rao, S/O Sathiyya vs Chinni Veerabhadravathi, W/o Sathiyya - Andhra Pradesh"].
Validity of the Quit Notice - Several courts have held that a notice issued under Section 106 is valid if it complies with the statutory requirements, including correct service, proper wording, and adherence to time frames. For example, the court in ["Vemuri Varalakshmi VS Kota Sivaprasad - 2023 0 Supreme(AP) 718"] observed that the quit notice issued was in full compliance with the law, and similarly, ["Vijay Educational Society VS Narra Ravindra Prasad, Chandra Sekhar Rao - Andhra Pradesh"] confirmed that the notice was valid when it met the legal standards.
Amendments and Legal Interpretations - The Transfer of Property (Amendment) Act, 2002, amended Section 106 to specify that a 15-day notice is sufficient for month-to-month leases, and that such notices are procedural and do not necessarily need to explicitly state notice to quit or termination to be effective ["Vijay Educational Society VS Narra Ravindra Prasad, Chandra Sekhar Rao - Andhra Pradesh"] ["G. Viswanathan Vs. Abraham Salamma W/o. T.V Abraham - Kerala"] ["Reddy Ramamurthy (died) per LRs. VS Goli Bhaskara Rao - Andhra Pradesh"]. Courts have clarified that even notices with minor errors may still be valid if the intent is clear and statutory requirements are met.
Suit as a Notice to Quit - In several judgments, it has been recognized that filing a suit for eviction can itself serve as a legal notice to quit, especially when the suit is based on a valid and properly served notice under Section 106 ["Pasumarthi Veera Bhadra Rao, S/O Sathiyya vs Chinni Veerabhadravathi, W/o Sathiyya - Andhra Pradesh"] ["Rukmani Devi Agarwal vs Rahul Gupta - Calcutta"] ["Babu Lal through his LRs. VS Ram Lal - Punjab and Haryana"]. However, the initial notice must still meet statutory standards to be deemed valid.
Legal Consequences of Invalid Notices - Courts have dismissed eviction suits where the notice was defective or not issued in accordance with law. For instance, in ["Mahboob Sab VS Peersab - Karnataka"], the court dismissed the suit due to improper notice, emphasizing the importance of strict compliance with Section 106.
Liability and Waiver - Acceptance of rent after the issuance of a notice does not necessarily waive the notice unless there is clear evidence of waiver or conduct indicating acceptance of tenancy continuation ["Natraj Electricals, Vijayawada VS P. Venkateswara Sarma - Andhra Pradesh"] ["Pasumarthi Veera Bhadra Rao, S/O Sathiyya vs Chinni Veerabhadravathi, W/o Sathiyya - Andhra Pradesh"]].
Jurisdiction and Procedural Aspects - Some cases highlight that civil courts have jurisdiction to entertain eviction suits based on notices issued under Section 106, and that procedural lapses in issuing notices can be grounds for dismissal ["T. Parthasarathy VS Arulmighu Parthasarathy Swamy Thirukoil, Rep. By its Assistant Commissioner / Executive Officer, Chennai - Madras"] ["A. Sundaraiah, vs Jala Markas Pradeep, - Telangana"].
Main Insight - A notice to quit under Section 106, if properly issued and served, is a necessary and sufficient legal step for initiating eviction proceedings. Courts have consistently held that such notices must comply with the statutory requirements, and any defect can render the suit liable to dismissal. Furthermore, the filing of a suit for eviction, when based on a valid notice, can itself be considered a notice to quit, but only if the notice itself is legally valid.
A notice to quit under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is not merely procedural but a substantive requirement for eviction. When issued correctly—adhering to the 15-day notice period for month-to-month leases, proper service, and correct language—the notice is valid and forms a proper basis for eviction suits. Conversely, defective or non-compliant notices lead to the suit being liable for dismissal, as seen in multiple judgments. Amendments to Section 106 have clarified that strict compliance is necessary but that minor errors may not invalidate the notice if the overall intent and compliance are evident. Ultimately, a suit based on a valid Section 106 notice is not a proper or independent suit liable to dismissal solely on procedural grounds, provided the notice itself was lawfully issued ["Vemuri Varalakshmi VS Kota Sivaprasad - 2023 0 Supreme(AP) 718"] ["Vijay Educational Society VS Narra Ravindra Prasad, Chandra Sekhar Rao - Andhra Pradesh"] ["Pasumarthi Veera Bhadra Rao, S/O Sathiyya vs Chinni Veerabhadravathi, W/o Sathiyya - Andhra Pradesh"].
References:- ["Vemuri Varalakshmi VS Kota Sivaprasad - 2023 0 Supreme(AP) 718"]- ["Vijay Educational Society VS Narra Ravindra Prasad, Chandra Sekhar Rao - Andhra Pradesh"]- ["T. Parthasarathy VS Arulmighu Parthasarathy Swamy Thirukoil, Rep. By its Assistant Commissioner / Executive Officer, Chennai - Madras"]- ["G. Viswanathan Vs. Abraham Salamma W/o. T.V Abraham - Kerala"]- ["Reddy Ramamurthy (died) per LRs. VS Goli Bhaskara Rao - Andhra Pradesh"]- ["Mahboob Sab VS Peersab - Karnataka"]- ["Pasumarthi Veera Bhadra Rao, S/O Sathiyya vs Chinni Veerabhadravathi, W/o Sathiyya - Andhra Pradesh"]- ["Rukmani Devi Agarwal vs Rahul Gupta - Calcutta"]- ["Babu Lal through his LRs. VS Ram Lal - Punjab and Haryana"]- ["A. Sundaraiah, vs Jala Markas Pradeep, - Telangana"]- ["M/s.Eskays Time Shop vs Mahesh Kumar - Telangana"]
In the realm of landlord-tenant disputes in India, one common query arises: Is a notice to quit under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act not proper, making the suit liable to be dismissed? This question often surfaces when eviction proceedings hit roadblocks due to alleged defects in termination notices. While a properly issued notice forms a cornerstone for maintainable eviction suits, procedural lapses can jeopardize the entire case. This post delves into the legal nuances, drawing from statutory provisions, judicial precedents, and practical insights to clarify when such notices hold water and when they falter.
Disclaimer: This article provides general information based on legal principles and case law. It is not a substitute for professional legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for advice tailored to your specific situation.
Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA), governs the termination of certain tenancies in the absence of a contrary contract, local law, or usage. For leases of immovable property (other than agricultural or manufacturing purposes), it mandates a tenancy from month to month, terminable by a 15-day notice expiring at the end of the tenancy month. Bhagabandas Agarwalla VS Bhagwandas Kanu - 1977 0 Supreme(SC) 113
The notice must be in writing, signed by or on behalf of the giver, and served via prescribed modes: post, personal delivery, or affixing to the property. Vemuri Varalakshmi VS Kota Sivaprasad - 2023 0 Supreme(AP) 718 Non-compliance can render the notice invalid, potentially leading to dismissal of the eviction suit. However, courts emphasize a common-sense and natural interpretation, avoiding hyper-technicality if substantial compliance is met. Bhagabandas Agarwalla VS Bhagwandas Kanu - 1977 0 Supreme(SC) 113
Amendments via Act No. 3 of 2003, influenced by Law Commission recommendations, refined these provisions to streamline terminations. Hardev Ratra vs Diwakar Dutt Modgill - 2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 9265
For a notice under Section 106 to be proper and shield the suit from dismissal:
A valid notice terminates the tenancy, making the eviction suit maintainable. Bhagabandas Agarwalla VS Bhagwandas Kanu - 1977 0 Supreme(SC) 113
Not all notices pass muster. Defects like missing signatures, improper service, or premature expiry can invalidate them:
In one case, co-owner issues or jurisdictional challenges (e.g., Rent Controller vs. Civil Court) were raised, but proper notices by entitled parties prevailed. A. Sundaraiah, vs Jala Markas Pradeep,
Courts dismiss suits if the notice doesn't comply and no subsequent validation occurs via landlord conduct. Bhagabandas Agarwalla VS Bhagwandas Kanu - 1977 0 Supreme(SC) 113
Indian courts adopt a pragmatic approach:
The law emphasizes a common-sense and natural interpretation of notices, avoiding hyper-technicality, provided the statutory requirements are substantially met. Bhagabandas Agarwalla VS Bhagwandas Kanu - 1977 0 Supreme(SC) 113
In an ejectment suit against a tea stall occupant, a 15-day notice under amended Section 106 was upheld: The court held that under the amended Section 106, a 15-day notice is sufficient to terminate a monthly lease. The appeal was dismissed, affirming notice validity. Jadab Chandra (Malakar) Das VS Sri Sri Hayagriv Madhab and Anr - 2007 Supreme(Gau) 441
Even defective notices may be salvaged if the landlord accepts them, estopping the tenant from challenge. Rent acceptance post-notice doesn't waive validity if conduct aligns. G. S. Prabhakar VS Joint Collector, Sangareddy, Medak District - 2007 0 Supreme(AP) 150 Acceptance of rent after a defective notice does not amount to waiver or validate an invalid notice. However, if the landlord accepts rent after issuing a notice, and the tenant acts upon it... the landlord may be estopped.
Post-lease expiry, tenants holding over become month-to-month, requiring Section 106 notice. Miscomputing tenancy months (e.g., terminating mid-month) invites challenge, but intent to end by month-end prevails. B. Chitra Ramacharandas etc VS National Remote Sensing Agency - 2000 Supreme(AP) 431
In another ruling, a society's notice for an 11-month lease holdover was valid, with interim rent directions under Order XX Rule 12 CPC. Badri Vishal VS Kshatriya Rajput Sabha Kutbiguda, Hyderabad - 2018 Supreme(AP) 70
Suits without notice fail: A suit for recovery of possession is not maintainable without a notice to quit under Section 106. Karupayee alias Vellaithayee Ammal VS Kathariya Tharka Trust Through its President M. Syed Khader Meher Ali Sahib - 2011 Supreme(Mad) 4335
Hyper-technical objections must be raised early. Late challenges often fail. Jadab Chandra (Malakar) Das VS Sri Sri Hayagriv Madhab and Anr - 2007 Supreme(Gau) 441
To avoid suit dismissal:1. Draft Precisely: Include all elements—duration, expiry date, signature. Bhagabandas Agarwalla VS Bhagwandas Kanu - 1977 0 Supreme(SC) 1132. Serve Correctly: Use registered post or personal delivery with acknowledgment.3. Retain Proof: Affidavits, postal receipts bolster cases.4. Re-Issue if Defective: Better safe than dismissed.5. Monitor Conduct: Avoid actions waiving rights, like unconditional rent acceptance post-notice.
Tenants: Challenge promptly with specifics; substantial defects can succeed.
A notice to quit under Section 106 TPA is not inherently improper or liable to dismissal if it complies with statutory formalities. Validity turns on proper form, service, and timing, bolstered by judicial preference for substance over form. Bhagabandas Agarwalla VS Bhagwandas Kanu - 1977 0 Supreme(SC) 113 Defects can doom suits unless cured by estoppel or acceptance.
Key Takeaways:- Ensure 15-day notice expires month-end for monthly tenancies.- Signature and service are non-negotiable.- Courts favor practical interpretations but demand substantial compliance.- Mandatory for eviction suits—omit at peril.
Stay informed, act diligently, and seek expert guidance to navigate tenancy terminations effectively. For more on Indian property laws, explore our blog.
References:- Bhagabandas Agarwalla VS Bhagwandas Kanu - 1977 0 Supreme(SC) 113, Shqik Abdul Hakim Sahib VS P. V. Krishnabhagawan Shetty - 1989 0 Supreme(AP) 29, G. S. Prabhakar VS Joint Collector, Sangareddy, Medak District - 2007 0 Supreme(AP) 150, Meduri Satyanarayana VS Shagamsetti Veerabhadra Swamy - 1989 0 Supreme(AP) 108, Jadab Chandra (Malakar) Das VS Sri Sri Hayagriv Madhab and Anr - 2007 Supreme(Gau) 441, Karupayee alias Vellaithayee Ammal VS Kathariya Tharka Trust Through its President M. Syed Khader Meher Ali Sahib - 2011 Supreme(Mad) 4335, Hardev Ratra vs Diwakar Dutt Modgill - 2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 9265, B. Chitra Ramacharandas etc VS National Remote Sensing Agency - 2000 Supreme(AP) 431, Shanmugam VS Hema - 2011 Supreme(Mad) 268, Badri Vishal VS Kshatriya Rajput Sabha Kutbiguda, Hyderabad - 2018 Supreme(AP) 70, A. Sundaraiah, vs Jala Markas Pradeep,
#Section106TPA, #NoticeToQuit, #EvictionLaw
106], [Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 106] - The court discussed the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, the validity of the ... quit notice issued under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, and the determination of damages. ... JUDGMENT: Civil Procedure - Jurisdiction - Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 - Section 106 ... Section 106 of the Act does not#HL....
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XLI Rule 31, Section 100 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 106 ... (2) Whether the lower appellate Court is right in recording a finding that second quit notice issued under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act is valid though not contemplated a second quit notice under the Act? ... Therefore, the facts at hand are governed by what is provided in #HL....
Ejectment - Transfer of Property Act - Section 106, Section 108(b) - The court confirmed the judgment and decree for eviction ... The court held that the notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was valid and properly served. ... Issues: The issues included the validity of the notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and the appellant's ... With respect to eviction, the Trial judge found that the construction was unauthorized and therefore....
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96 and Order XLI Rule 1 - Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 - Section ... 106 - Appeal against trial court's decree for recovery of possession and compensation - Plaintiffs sought possession of property ... In the case of a lease, a suit could not be brought without serving a Termination Notice as required under Section 106(1) of the Transfer of Property Act. Ext.A5 is not a Notice#H....
Considering the said recommendations of the Law Commission, the Legislature by Act No.3 of 2003 amended section 106 of the Transfer of Protperty Act. ... Section 106 of the transfer of property act, 1882 inter alia hprovides that the leased of immovable property for agricultural or manufacturing purposes shall be deemed to be a lease from year to year which may be terminated i either by the lessor or the lessee by six months #HL_STA....
Transfer of Property Act - Ejectment - Section 106 Fact of the Case: The respondents filed a suit for ejectment of ... Ratio Decidendi: The court held that under the amended Section 106, a 15-day notice is sufficient to terminate a monthly lease ... Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, stating that the notice to vacate was valid under Section 106 of the Transfer ... Act it is not necessary that notice to quit....
or from month to month in accordance with the provisions of Section 106 of the Act.” ... Shri Gulatee has further pointed out that a notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act was given by the plaintiff/respondent terminating the lease (tenancy) of the defendant/appellant but after issuing notice, the rent deposited during the pendency of suit has been withdrawn by the plaintiff ... & (iii) “Whether, the quit#HL....
Learned counsel further argued that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the same and only the Rent Controller Court has got jurisdiction and that the co-owner of property not issued the quit notice and therefore, the notice issued by the plaintiffs under Section 106 of the Act is illegal and void ... Though during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant-defendant contended that both the plaintiffs had not i....
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 106 – Termination of Tenancy – Whether the suit notices to quit ... are valid to terminate the tenancy in question by virtue of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as amended – Aggrieved ... Accordingly, the Transfer of Property (Amendment) Act, 2002, Central Act NO.3 of 2003, was enacted and by Section 2 thereof, Section 106 of the Principal ....
Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is waived by virtue of the respondent’s acceptance of rents under Section 113 of the Transfer of Property Act? If so, the judgments of the Courts below are vitiated in not considering the same? ... Admittedly, the tenant was asked to vacate the suit schedule premises within 10 days from the date of receipt of Ex.A.1 quit notice. Having received Ex.A.1 quit noti....
(c) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for arrears of rent of Rs.4,500/-? (b) Whether the quit notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is valid? 5. On the basis of the pleadings, the lower Court framed the following seven issues: (a) Whether the tenancy month commenced from 16th April or from 10th April? (d) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for use and occupation at Rs.10,000/- per month from 17.03.1999 and if not at what rate?
No notice has been issued as per Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Notice to quit as per Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is mandatory. In as much as the suit is one for vacating the site tenant. Furthermore, the relief for recovery of possession as prayed by the Respondent/Plaintiff is not sustainable in law or on facts.
7. Accordingly, suggesting the following substantial questions of law in the memorandum of appeal, this second appeal has been filed. a. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for want of proper notice to quit under Section 106 of the TP Act ? c. Whether the appellant could be treated as a tenant after sale agreement between him and vendor of respondent? b. Whether the respondent/plaintiff is entitled to maintain the suit when there is no attornment of tenancy in her favour?
According to Section 110 of the Transfer of Property Act, the first date on which the tenancy commenced has to be excluded in computing the month of the tenancy. So computed the monthly tenancy commences from 17th of every month and ends with 16th of the following month. After the expiry of the first year of the lease period, the tenant continued in possession as tenant holding over from month to month. As such a proper notice to quit as per Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is required.
(v) Admittedly, the rate of rent is Rs. 191/- per month. Therefore, the plaintiff-Devasthanam would be entitled for damages at the rate of Rs. 191/- per month from the date of the suit till the date of recovery of possession.” Therefore, it is a valid notice to quit under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. A. 1. is the copy of the notice to quit was issued to the defendants, whereby the tenancy of the first defendant had been terminated.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
