TABLE OF CASES

Arjunlal Bhatt mall Gothani and Ors. v. Girish Chandra Dutta and Anr., Air 1973 SC 2256.
Bavasaheb Walad Mansursaheb v. West Patent Press Co. Ltd. And Ors, AIR 1954 Bom 257.
Benoy Krishna Das v. Salsiccioni, AIR 1932 PC 279.
Bradley v. Atkinson, ILR (1885) 7 All 899.
Devaki v. Alavi, AIR 1979 Ker 108.
Dharam Pal v. Harabans Singh, 2006 (9) SCC 217.
Eranhikal Talappil Moosa Kutty v. Kozhikote Puthia Kovilakath, AIR 1928 Mad 687.
Hariher Banerji v. Ramsashi Ray, AIR 1918 PC 102
Idandas v. Anant Ramchandra Phadke, AIR 1982 SC 127.
Jacob Philip v. State Bank of Travancore And Ors, AIR 1973 Ker 51 (FB).
Jiwan Dass v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 694.
Kamal Mangla & Ors v. Tata Finance Ltd., 2011 ILR 3 Delhi 682.
Kanji Manji v. The Trustees of the Port of Bombay, AIR 1963 SC 468.
Lelitha v. Ayissumma, AIR 1978 Ker 167.
M/S Park Street Properties (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Dipak Kumar Singh And Anr, AIR 2016 SC 4038.
Madan & Co v. Wazir Jaivir Chand, AIR 1989 SC 630.
Mangal Sen v. Kanchhid Mal, AIR 1981 SC 1726.
Mangilal v. Sugan Chand, AIR 1963 SC 101.
Manikkam Pillai v. Rathnasami Nadar, AIR 1919 Mad 1186.
Maya Chanda and Ors. v. Krishnan Lal Dey and Anr., 1969 (2) SCWR 478.
Nagji Vallabhaji And Co. v. Meghji Vijpar And Co. And Ors, 1987 (1) BomCR 547.
Namdeo Lokman Lodhi v. Narmadabal, AIR 1953 SC 228.
Nanalal Girdharlal and Anr. v. Gulamnabi Jamalbhai Motorwala, AIR 1973 Guj 131.
Pandit Kishan Lal V. Ganpat Ram Khosla and Anr., AIR 1961 SC 1554.
Parwati Bai v. Radhika, AIR 2003 SC 3995.
Pradesh Kumar Bajpai v. Binod Behari Sarkar, AIR 1980 SC 1214.
Ram Chandra and anr. v. Lala Dullichand, AIR 1958 All 729.
Ram Kumar Das v. Jagadish Chandra Deb Dhabal, AIR 1952 SC 23.
Ramesh Bejoy Sharma And Ors v. Pashupati Rai And Ors., AIR 1979 SC 1769.
Ratanlal Bansilal and Ors v. Kishorilal Goenka and Ors, AIR1993 Cal 144.
Shanta Devi v. Amal Kumar Banerjee, AIR 1981 SC 1550.
Shiv Nath v. Shri Ram Bharosey Lal, AIR 1969 All 333.
Shri Janki Devi Bhagat Trust, Agra v. Ram swarup Jain (dead), AIR 1995 SC 2482.
Shri Nath v. Shri Ram Bharosey Lal, AIR 1969 All 333
Sevoke Properties Ltd. v. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., 2019
SCC Online SC 592.
The Calcutta Credit Corporation Ltd. and Anr. v. Happy Homes (P) Ltd., AIR 1968 SC 471.
V Dhanpal Chettiar v. Yesodai Ammal AIR 1979 SC 1745.
Vasantkumar Radhakisan Vora v. Board of Trustees Of The Port Of Bombay, AIR 1991 SC
14.
Vinod Kumar v. Harbans Singh Azad, AIR 1977 P H 262 (FB).

SECTION 106 OF TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882

“Duration of certain leases in absence of written contract or local usage –

In the absence of a contract or local law or usage to the contrary, a lease of immovable
property for agriculture or manufacturing purposes shall be deemed to be a lease from year to
year, terminable, on the part of either lessor or lessee, by six months’ notice; and a lease of
immovable property for any other purpose shall be deemed to be a lease from month to
month, terminable on the part of either lessor or lessee, by fifteen days’ notice.

1. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the
period mentioned in the in the sub-section (1) shall commence from the date of receipt
of notice.
2. A notice under sub-section (1) shall not be deemed to be invalid merely because the
period mentioned therein falls short of the period specified under that sub-section
where a suit or proceeding is filed after the expiry of the period mentioned in that sub-
section.
3. Every notice under sub-section (1) must be in writing, signed by or on behalf of the
person giving it, and either be sent by post to the part who is intended to be bound by
it or be tendered or delivered personally to such party, or to one of his family or
servants at his residence, or (if such tender or delivery is not practicable) affixed to a
conspicuous part of the property.”
 INTRODUCTION
Section 106 of transfer of property act establishes the provisions for the duration of the lease.
As per the section 1051 of the Act lease is defined as a transfer of a right to enjoy an
immovable property, made for a certain time, in consideration of any other thing of value, to
the transferor by the transferee. Section 106 of transfer of property act provides for duration
of certain leases in absence of a written contract or local usage. The first part of this section
provides for the period of notice terminating a tenancy. According to the section 106 a lease
of immovable property for agriculture or manufacturing purpose shall terminate on a six
months’ notice either by lessor or by lessee. The second part of the section provides the
manner in which such notice is to be given. Every notice has to be in written form and signed
by or on behalf of the person giving it; either it can be sent by post or is delivered personally.
This research paper briefly analyzes different aspects of the section by referring to the
important precedents on the topic.

In its application to state of Uttar Pradesh; in section 106 words “expiring with the end of a
year of the tenancy” and “expiring with the end of a month of the tenancy” were omitted.
And for the words “fifteen days’ notice” the words “thirty days’ notice” were substituted as
per the Uttar Pradesh (Amendment) Act 24 of 1954.

ANALYSIS OF THE SECTION 106

Contract to the contrary:

A contract to the contrary as contemplated by section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act
need not be an express contract; it may be implied, but it certainly should be a valid contract
and it cannot be read to mean that the parties are free to contract out of the express provisions
of the law, thereby defeating its very intent.2 If it is no contract in law, the section will be
operative and regulate the duration of the lease. The section 106 applies only in absence of
contract to contrary and not where there exists contract.

1
Section 105 of Transfer of Property Act states – “ Lease defined- a lease of immovable property is a transfer of
a right to enjoy such property, made for a certain time, express or implied, or in perpetuity, in consideration of a
price paid or promised, or of money, share of crops, service or any other thing of value, to be rendered
periodically or on specified occasions to the transferor by the transferee, who accepts the transfer on such terms.
Lessor, lessee, premium and rent defiend- The transferor is called the lessor, the transferee is called the lessee,
the price is called the premium, and the money, share, service or other thing to be so rendered is called rent.”
2
M/S Park Street Properties (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Dipak Kumar Singh And Anr, AIR 2016 SC 4038.
A clause in the lease providing for liability to surrender and right to evict, if a rent for two
consecutive months is defaulted, is a clear contract to the contrary.3
Provision in the lease deed for surrender of the possession of the leasehold without demur on
demand made after the expiry of the term fixed is not a contract to the contrary dispensing
with quit notice. Thus such a lease deed does not contain a contract to the contrary as
envisaged by section 106.4 Notice under the section 106 is not necessary and a mere demand
will suffice if the lease is on condition that the land demised should be surrendered whenever
required.5 When the rent note provides that in case the lessee fails to pay the agreed rent, the
lessor would be entitled to evict the lessee, no question of notice arises. Such stipulations
amount to contract to contrary.

Lease for a certain term (Notice):

The term for a lease is the period of time in which the contracted lease is in place. It
establishes time period for both lessor and lessee. Where a definite period is fixed as the term
of a lease, the lease will automatically come to an end by efflux of the time limited thereby. A
notice will not be necessary to determine a lease.6 In cases of a lease from year to year or of a
lease from month to month, by agreement, the parties concerned by the agreement would be
entitled to stipulate that the lease would be terminable by giving notice of a particular
duration and that such notice need not expire with the end of the year or the month of the
tenancy.7 Where a lease for manufacturing purpose is held over on the terms of the original
lease and the original lease provides for the three months’ notice for the termination of the
lease under certain circumstances, the provision of six months’ laid down in the section 106
will not apply.8
Where the original lease was for a definite term of a year or years, the tenancy by holding
over will commence from next day after such anniversary, and a month of the tenancy must
be determined with reference to such commencement.9
A lease in which no definite term is fixed and which contains a clause enabling the parties to
determine it by fifteen days’ notice cannot be said to be a lease for definite period in spite of

3
Jacob Philip v. State Bank of Travancore And Ors, AIR 1973 Ker 51 (FB).
4
Lelitha v. Ayissumma, AIR 1978 Ker 167.
5
Devaki v. Alavi, AIR 1979 Ker 108.
6
Shanta Devi v. Amal Kumar Banerjee, AIR 1981 SC 1550.
7
Shri Nath v. Shri Ram Bharosey Lal, AIR 1969 All 333.
8
AIR 1969 All 333.
9
Benoy Krishna Das v. Salsiccioni, AIR 1932 PC 279.
the fact that it may be described as monthly tenancy within the purview of this section. Under
the instrument the tenancy could continue as long as the parties want.

Tenancy at will:
Tenancy at will is a tenancy under which a tenant is in possession, and which is determinable
at the will of either landlord or tenant; and although upon its creation it is expressed to be at
the will of the tenant only, yet the law implies that it shall be at the will of the other party
also; for every lease at will must in law be at the will of both the parties.10 This position arises
when the lease clearly and unambiguously contains a clause leaving it to the option of either
of the landlord or of the lessee to determine the lease. A tenancy at will is necessarily
determined at the option of either party to contract. It can be determined by lessee creating a
lease in favour of another person or lessee assigning his right to a stranger.11

Law to Contrary:
Where the lease is entered into after commencement of the Transfer of Property Act and it is
governed by U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, the terms of contract and
the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act to that extent are no longer applicable.12 Notice
under section 106 is not necessary for ejectment under section 13, East Punjab Urban Rent
Restriction Act (1949). Also the Andhra Pradesh Building Control Act, 1960, provides
procedure for eviction and a prior notice under section 106 of the Transfer Of Property Act
terminating the lease, is not necessary before filing a petition for eviction under the Andhra
Act.13
The purpose of the section 106 is merely to terminate the contract which the overriding Rent
Acts do not permit to be terminated. Even if the lease is determined by forfeiture under the
Transfer of Property Act the tenant continues to be a tenant. The tenant becomes liable to be
evicted and forfeiture comes into play only if he has incurred liability to be evicted under the
State Rent Act, not otherwise.14

Presumption of yearly or monthly tenancy under this section

The section lays down a rule of construction which is to be applied when there is no period
agreed upon between parties. The rule also applies to leases implied by law which may be

10
Bavasaheb Walad Mansursaheb v. West Patent Press Co. Ltd. And Ors, AIR 1954 Bom 257.
11
AIR 1954 Bom 257.
12
Pradesh Kumar Bajpai v. Binod Behari Sarkar, AIR 1980 SC 1214.
13
Vinod Kumar v. Harbans Singh Azad, AIR 1977 P H 262 (FB).
14
V Dhanpal Chettiar v. Yesodai Ammal AIR 1979 SC 1745.
inferred from possession and acceptance of rent. In such cases the duration has to be
determined by reference to the object or purpose for which the tenancy is created. The mode
in which the rent is expressed to be payable affords a presumption that the tenancy is of a
character corresponding there to. A lease not for manufacturing or agricultural purposes can
be presumed to be one from month to month unless there was a contract to contrary. This
presumption can be applied to the building lease.15 Consequently, when the rent reserved is
an annual rent, the presumption would arise that the tenancy was an annual tenancy unless
there is something to rebut the presumption.

Lease from month to month:

According to section 106 of the Act, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, a lease of
immovable property for a purpose other than agricultural and manufacturing purposes shall
be deemed to be a lease from month to month. A tenancy from month to month is not a
tenancy for fixed period; it’s a tenancy for a one month certain. Yet parties can be certain
about duration for minimum period. There is a reasonable prospect of the tenancy being
renewed beyond one month. But there is no certainty.16
Where a person holds over under an unregistered lease and continues in possession by paying
the monthly rent, the holding over must be held as a tenancy from month to month. The
purported agreement of lease not being a registered one the same having been made in
contravention of section 107 as also section 17(1)(d) of Indian Registration Act, it having
regarding to the purpose mentioned in section 106 must be held to be a month to month
lease.17

Lease from year to year:

A lease of immovable property for agricultural or manufacturing purposes is deemed to be
from year to year and those for any other purposes are deemed to be from month to month.18
It is to be noted that the provisions of section 107 of the Transfer of Property act does not
control section 106 of the Act. Notwithstanding what is contained in section 107, the
provisions of section 106 will apply to manufacturing lease whether the lease deed is
registered or unregistered so as to make it a lease from year to year to control the duration of
the period of the notice.

15
Ram Kumar Das v. Jagadish Chandra Deb Dhabal, AIR 1952 SC 23.
16
Shiv Nath v. Shri Ram Bharosey Lal, AIR 1969 All 333.
17
Kamal Mangla & Ors v. Tata Finance Ltd., 2011 ILR 3 Delhi 682.
18
Nagji Vallabhaji And Co. v. Meghji Vijpar And Co. And Ors, 1987 (1) BomCR 547.
Lease for agriculture and manufacturing purpose.
The statute has not defined the word “manufacturing purposes” in section 106 and so many
times issue was raised before the court what “lease for manufacturing purpose” means and in
order to justify the meaning, Supreme Court in Idandas v. Anant Ramchandra Phadke 19, laid
down certain test to conclude that whether the lease was for manufacturing purpose or not.
These are:
 That it must be proved that a certain commodity was produced;
 That process of production must involve either labour or machinery.
 That the end product which comes into existence after the manufacturing process is
complete, should have a different use and should be put to a different use. The
commodity should be so transformed so as to lose its original character.
The burden of proof, whether the purpose of lease is a manufacturing purpose or not will be
on tenant. A manufacturing lease which is not from year to year, six months notice of
termination is not required, it will fall in the second half of section 106, requiring fifteen
days’ notice of termination.20
The rules in the section 106 are founded upon the reason and equity; they are the principles of
English law and should be adopted as statement of law in India applicable to agricultural
leases. In case of an agricultural lease, the notice must expire with the end of agricultural
year.21

Notice to quit
If a contract is to be put to an end it has to be terminated by a notice to quit as envisaged
under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act. No notice to quit is necessary under section
106 in order to enable the landlord to get an order of eviction against the tenant.22 A notice to
quit is necessary under this section before a suit for ejectment can be brought only where the
defendant is the tenant of the plaintiff.23 A tenancy, except where it is at will, may be
terminated only on the expiry of the period of notice of a specified duration under the
contract, custom or statute governing the premises in question.24 By issuance of notice to quit
automatically the right created thereunder, namely succession of the lease does not become
effective till the period prescribed in the notice or in the section 106 expires. On expiry

19
AIR 1982 SC 127.
20
Shri Janki Devi Bhagat Trust, Agra v. Ram swarup Jain (dead), AIR 1995 SC 2482.
21
Ramesh Bejoy Sharma And Ors v. Pashupati Rai And Ors., AIR 1979 SC 1769.
22
V. Dhanapal Chettiar v. Yesodai Ammal, AIR 1979 SC 1745.
23
Arjunlal Bhatt mall Gothani and Ors. v. Girish Chandra Dutta and Anr., Air 1973 SC 2256.
24
Pandit Kishan Lal V. Ganpat Ram Khosla and Anr., AIR 1961 SC 1554.
thereof the lease becomes inoperative and the lessor acquires right to have the tenant
ejected.25
The two requirements for a notice to be valid are: it should be a 15 days’ notice i.e. it must
give clear 15 days time for the tenant to vacate and the notice must expire with the end of the
month of the tenancy.26 Where an invalid notice is accepted and acted upon the party to
whom it is given, the tenancy would be determined. A tenancy is determined by service of the
notice in the manner prescribed by the section 111 (h) read with the section 106 of Transfer
of Property Act.27

Who can give notice to quit

Under this section a lease can be determined by a notice to quit to either by the lessor or the
lessee. The term “lessor” includes any person who would be entitled to the possession of the
property on the termination of the lease.28 In case of more than one owner of an immovable
property a lease cannot be determined by notice by one or some co-owners, notice to quit
must be on behalf of all the lessors. Where two or more co-owners have granted a periodic
tenancy, it can be determined only by a notice to quit given by all co-owners. Now when we
say that notice to quit must be given by all the co-owners, it is not necessary that it should be
signed by all the co-owners. It is sufficient if it is given by someone acting as an agent. The
agent may be one of the co-owners himself or he may be a third person such as solicitor or
advocate. Such agency may be expressed or implied. So long as the agency is established,
notice to quit given by the agent would be a valid notice determining the tenancy. 29 Notice to
quit by an unauthorised person will be invalid. Where one co-owner along with a third party
pretending to be the co-owner to the denial of the title of the lawful co-owner issued the
notice for ejectment and also filed a suit, such notice would be invalid.30

Notice to quit should be given to whom

According to section 106 of transfer of property act notice to quit should be tendered or
delivered to the party intended to be bound by it either personally or to one of his family or
servants at his residence. The personal tender or delivery may take place anywhere: the
vicarious tender or delivery must take place at the residence of the person intended to be

25
Vasantkumar Radhakisan Vora v. Board of Trustees Of The Port Of Bombay, AIR 1991 SC 14.
26
Dharam Pal v. Harabans Singh, 2006 (9) SCC 217.
27
The Calcutta Credit Corporation Ltd. and Anr. v. Happy Homes (P) Ltd., AIR 1968 SC 471.
28
Manikkam Pillai v. Rathnasami Nadar, AIR 1919 Mad 1186.
29
Nanalal Girdharlal and Anr. v. Gulamnabi Jamalbhai Motorwala, AIR 1973 Guj 131.
30
Ratanlal Bansilal and Ors v. Kishorilal Goenka and Ors, AIR1993 Cal 144.
bound by the notice.31 Where the leasehold interest is not vested in a single person but in joint
tenants notice to quit must be given to all the joint tenants. In case of joint lease, a notice to
quit is addressed to all the joint lessees but is served only on one of them, there is sufficient
compliance with the provisions of Transfer of Property Act.32

Service by Post
The express provision that the notice may be sent by post only contemplates the sending by
post to the correct address. If a letter properly directed containing a notice to quit is proved to
have been put into the post office, it is presumed that the letter reached its destination at the
proper time according to the regular course of business of the post office, and was received
by the person to whom it was addressed.33 If notice to terminate the tenancy is sent through
the registered post on correct address and the letter returned because of the unavailability of
the addressee, no responsibility lies on sender or postman to arrange that notice is served. 34 If
the notice is sent by the registered post but is returned as have been refused by the addressee.
This will be sufficient service of the notice for the purpose of this section.35

Waiver of notice
Where the landlord has given the notice to tenant for surrender of possession and tenant is
standing surety for landlord for payment of certain arrears of sales tax, but no actual payment
is made by tenant and the landlord does not agree to adjust the payment towards rent, the
conduct of landlord does not amount to waiver of noitce36. The landlord acquires the right to
file the suit, the relationship of landlord and tenant continues till the tenancy is determined
and no question of waiver will arise when the initial notice is bad under section 106 and the
tenancy is not in law determined.37 Objection regarding the validity of the quit notice must be
raised specifically and at earliest otherwise the objection would be deemed to have been
waived.38 After filing the suit of ejectment on determination of tenancy by serving a notice
under section 106, even if the landlord accepts the rents for subsequent period did not amount
to waiver.

31
Hariher Banerji v. Ramsashi Ray, AIR 1918 PC 102.
32
Kanji Manji v. The Trustees of the Port of Bombay, AIR 1963 SC 468.
33
AIR 1918 PC 102.
34
Madan & Co v. Wazir Jaivir Chand, AIR 1989 SC 630.
35
(1991) 1 Bom CR 505.
36
Mangal Sen v. Kanchhid Mal, AIR 1981 SC 1726.
37
Mangilal v. Sugan Chand, AIR 1963 SC 101.
38
Parwati Bai v. Radhika, AIR 2003 SC 3995.
Form of notice
Section 106 does not indicate what should be the nature of the notice by which the lease is
terminable. A lease governed by section 106 can be determined by a notice which complies
with the requirement of the section 111 of transfer of property act, provided the further
requirement that the notice should be such as to make the lease terminable with the end of the
tenancy is also satisfied.39 The purpose of the notice is to furnish intimation to the tenant of
termination of the lease and to provide a period of fifteen days to quit and vacate the
premises. Though no specific form is provided by the Transfer of Property Act, the
substantive purpose of such a notice is in effect fulfilled in the form of the suit for possession,
so long as an eviction follows beyond a period of fifteen days.40

Expiring with the end of year or month of tenancy

A notice which does not expire at end of a year or month of the tenancy will be invalid under
this section41 also the mere fact that the tenant is allowed to hold on till the end of such a
period and the suit for ejectment is brought against him only afterwards cannot cure the
defect in the notice so as to make it effective for the purpose of terminating the tenancy.42
The notice does not expire with the end of the month of the tenancy, it is immaterial whether
a notice is to quit on the last day of the month or year of the tenancy or on the next day after
that.43
LIMITATIONS
Section 106 only recognizes two kinds of tenancies, one yearly tenancy and fines other
monthly tenancy. There are cases which do not come under the ambit of section 106 and thus
are governed by the terms of contract of tenancy. Like where there is a contract as to giving
notice or waiving notice, the parties are governed by the terms of the contract and section 106
will not apply in such case.44 Section 106 does not indicate that the landlord is entitled to
terminate the tenancy by giving 15 days notice. Section 106 does not contemplate of giving
any reason for terminating the tenancy.45A notice to quit under section 106 is not a necessary
pre-requisite for an eviction under any of the State Rents Acts.46 The rule of law enacted in

39
Ram Chandra and anr. v. Lala Dullichand, AIR 1958 All 729.
40
Sevoke Properties Ltd. v. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., 2019 SCC Online SC
592.
41
Maya Chanda and Ors. v. Krishnan Lal Dey and Anr., 1969 (2) SCWR 478.
42
Bradley v. Atkinson, ILR (1885) 7 All 899.
43
Benoy Krishna Das v. Salsiccioni, AIR 1932 PC 279.
44
Eranhikal Talappil Moosa Kutty v. Kozhikote Puthia Kovilakath, AIR 1928 Mad 687.
45
Jiwan Dass v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 694.
46
2017 (2) Rent LR 404 (Del).
section 106 of Transfer of Property Act is not a rule of justice, equity and good conscience.47
The requirement of giving of notice is a technical rule of law. It is a firmly established
principle that such a rule of law cannot be characterised as law based upon the principle of
justice, equity and good conscience. It cannot be applied without the application of the statute
law. 48

47
Namdeo Lokman Lodhi v. Narmadabal, AIR 1953 SC 228.
48
Charu Shah v. Usharani Das Gupta and Ors, AIR 1969 Pat 331.