D.P.Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. This petition is directed against concurrent orders dated 15.9.2006 and 22.4.2009 by which eviction suit filed by the respondent-landlord has been decreed by both the courts below. The respondent-landlord instituted suit no. 24 of 1990 with the allegation that Riyazul Haq Lari was a tenant of the disputed premises since 1985 at the rate of Rs.140/- per month apart from house tax, water tax etc. but he defaulted in payment of rent from January, 1989 where-after he died in September, 1989 and the petitioner became the tenant and she also did not pay the rent. Accordingly, the tenancy was terminated vide notice dated 2.2.1990 and in spite of notice, neither the premises was vacated nor amount paid. It was also asserted that U.P. Act no. XIII of 1972 (here-in-after referred to as the Act ) was not applicable since it was a new house and was assessed for the first with effect from 1984-85. The petitioner-tenant contested the suit by filing written statement denying the claim of the landlord inter-alia stating that the disputed constructions were of the year 1967 and the Act would apply and further that the petitioner had deposited the entire amount under section 30(1) of the Act on 22.9.1990 in the knowledge of the landlord and therefore, her tenancy stood saved. Initially the suit was decreed vide order dated 9.2.2000 that the Act was not applicable against which the petitioner preferred revision and vide judgment and order dated 16.3.2002 the revisional court remanded the matter for deciding afresh in accordance with the observations made therein. After remand, the Judge, Small Causes court again decreed the suit vide order dated 15.9.2006 holding that the Act was not applicable to the disputed premises and the petitioner was in default and therefore, decreed the suit. The resultant revision has also been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has firstly urged that even if U.P. Act no. XIII of 1972 was not applicable, the court below was bound to consider whether tenancy was saved under section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act. It is by now well settled that suit for ejectment against a tenant is not maintainable unless a previous notice to quit or notice of demand of possession either under section 106 or 111 (g) of the Transfer of property Act (here-in-after referred to as T.P. Act) is given. A tenant is entitled for benefit or protection of section 114 of the T.P. Act only if the tenancy is determined by forfeiture under section 111 (g) of the T.P. Act. But termination of tenancy simplicitor through a notice under section 106 of the T.P. Act would not attract the provision. Recently, a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of B.R. Trading and Company and others Vs. Dharam Raj Sahu [2008 (3) A.R.C. 148], after considering large number of decisions of this Court and the Apex Court, has reiterated the aforesaid principle. Though a copy of the notice has not been annexed, it is apparent from the record that the tenancy was terminated by a simplicitor notice under section 106 of the T.P. Act. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the tenancy was determined by forfeiture. Accordingly, the argument cannot be accepted. It is then urged that entire amount of rent has already been deposited prior to the filing of the suit itself and therefore, no cause of action had arisen to file the suit. It is evident from the record that the tenancy was determined by a simplicitor notice under section 106 of the T.P. Act and once the tenancy was determined, it would give rise to a cause of action to file suit for eviction if it is not vacated. It would be immaterial that any amount was paid or deposited after the determination of the tenancy. In the present case, admittedly the notice determining the tenancy was given on 2.2.1990 while the suit was filed in July, 1990 and the alleged amount deposited under section 30 was on 22.9.1990 and if the issue is examined in this background, the argument is totally misplaced. No other point has been urged. For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected.;