- (1.) THIS is a Civil Second Appeal in a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent on behalf of the plaintiff who, it is admitted, had leased one shop at Bajaj Road in Sikar to defendant Mangla. The defendant had executed the rent note (Ex. 1) in favour of plaintiff on 20th March, 1959 which contained the terms of the lease.
(2.) THE case of the plaintiff is that one of the terms of the lease was that the tenant would vacate the shop in dispute in case the rent was in arrears. THE trial court decreed the suit for ejectment on the ground that the defendant was liable to ejectment as the rent fell in arrears. On appeal by the defendant, the lower appellate court came to the conclusion that the rent-note provided for one month's notice for determination of lease, and as no such notice was given, the tenancy did not terminate. It also held that the condition of one month's notice was not in any way affected by the term in the rent-note that the tenant will vacate the shop in dispute in case the rent was in arrears. Taking this view of the matter, the lower appellate court dismissed the suit for ejectment. Hence this second appeal on behalf of the plaintiff. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the rent-note (Ex. 1) clearly provided that in case the rent fell in arrears, the plaintiff shall have a right to get the shop vacated without any notice and so the defendant was liable to be ejected. But even then, the plaintiff was bound to give notice determining the lease as provided in sec. 111 (g) of the Transfer of Property Act as in such a case, the lease was determined by forfeiture. Sec. 111 (g) clearly provides that when a lease of immovable property determines by forfeiture, that is to say, in case the lessee breaks an express condition which provides that, on breach thereof, the lessor may re-enter, the lessor is bound to give notice in writing to the lessee of his intention to determine his lease, and then only the lease can be said to have determined. The plaintiff never said in his plaint that he had given any such notice and he had no cause of action to sue for ejectment. The appeal has got no force and is therefore dismissed. No order as to costs as the respondent has not put in appearance at the time of hearing. .;