Ajit Singh Bains, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal arises out of the concurrent finding of fact of both tho Courts below. A suit was brought by the Plaintiff Respondent for the ejectment of the Defendant -Appellant from the shop situated at Railway Road, Village Bhogpur, Tehsil and District Jullundur. It was alleged in the plaint that the shop, in dispute, was let out to the Defendant for 11 months and that the said contractual period had already expired and the tenancy had determined by efflux of time. These allegations were denied by the Defendant in the written statement wherein it was averred that no notice as required under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was given to or served upon him and the suit is not maintainable in the present form. It was also averred that he had made certain improvements on the shop, in dispute, and as such is entitled to get the amount on the(sic) account.
(2.) THE parties contested on the following issues: 1. Whether a valid notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act is served(sic), if not so, to what effect ? 2. Whether suit is not maintainable in the present form ? Whether suit is properly valued for the purposes of Couit -fee and jurisdiction ?
(3.) WHETHER Defendant has effected any improvement on suit property ; If so, of what amount and to what effect ? 3. The trial Court decided issues Nos. 1 and 4 in favour of the Plaintiff, issues Nos. 2 and 3 were not pressed before it and, consequently, it passed a decree for ejectment of the Defendant from the shop, in dispute. Dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the Defendant filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, who also dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings of the trial Court. It is in this situation that the second appeal has been filed by the Defendant in this Court. 4. The only point urged by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant is that no notice as required under Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act was served on him, 1 do not find any merit in the same. Admittedly, the rent -note, Exhibit P 1, dated 2nd March, 1970 is for a specific period of 11 months and the lease had determined on 1st February, 1971. In such a case no notice is required and the provision of Section 111(a) of the Transfer of Property Act applies, which is in the following terms: A lease of immovable property determines: (a) by efflux of the time limited there by ;" A bare reading of Section 111(a) shows that the tenancy terminates by the efflux of time. In this case rent note, Exhibit P. 1, was executed on 2nd of March, 1970. This has been admitted by the Appellant. Rent note shows that shop in question was rented out to the Defendant for 11 months and the lease was to come to an end on 1st of February, 1971. In such a case, the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act are not applicable. The provisions of this section are applicable only where the tenancy is from month to month and not for a specified period. In the present case, admittedly, the tenancy was, as is clear from the rent -note, for a period of 11 months and in such a situation the notice is implicit in the rent note itself and the provisions of Section 111(a) of the Transfer of Property Act are applicable. Reliance can be placed on Dattonpant Gopalvarao Devakate v. Vithalrao Marutirao, : AIR 1975 SC 1111 in which it was observed by the Supreme Court as under: No notice is necessary if a lease of immovable property determined under Clause (a) of Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act be(sic) efflux of the time limited thereby." Reliance can also be placed on Md. Fazthzzaman(sic) v. Anwar Husain, : AIR 1932 All. 314 where it was observed: Where the lease is for a fixed period and is governed by the Act, it is determined under Section 111(a) by the efflux of time limited by the lease, and notice must be presumed by implication as given when it was executed and therefore no notice under Section 106 is required for the termination of such a lease. No other point is urged.;