### Filing of a Suit for Possession Constitutes Valid Notice of Tenancy Termination Under Section 106 TPA

The Respondent (landlady) filed a suit for possession and injunction against the Appellant (tenant) regarding a shop in Nawada, New Delhi.

The shop was let out via a rent agreement dated 01.01.2001 at an initial rent of ₹1,000 per month.

The Respondent sought vacancy for the bona fide needs of her family.

The Appellant contested the suit, claiming the tenancy was "perpetual/non-terminable" because a pagri (advance) of ₹1,48,000 had been paid.

The Appellant also argued the suit was barred by Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control (DRC) Act, 1958, as the rent was below ₹3,500.

The Trial Court decreed the suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC based on admissions of the landlord-tenant relationship.

The First Appellate Court upheld this and dismissed an application to amend the written statement to include a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU).

1. Whether a suit for ejectment is maintainable without a formal 'notice to quit' under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

2. Whether the civil court's jurisdiction was barred under Section 50 of the DRC Act regarding premises in Village Nawada.

3. Whether the payment of pagri and the existence of an unregistered MoU rendered the tenancy non-terminable.

Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, which allows for a judgment on admissions.

Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, which estops a tenant from challenging the landlord's title.

Nopany Investments (P) Ltd. v. Santokh Singh (HUF), establishing that the filing of an eviction suit itself constitutes sufficient notice to quit.

Section 2 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which held that the Act does not apply to an area unless a specific notification is issued by the Central Government.

The Court found that the landlord-tenant relationship and the rate of rent (below ₹3,500) were admitted.

For the DRC Act to bar civil jurisdiction under Section 50, the locality (Nawada) must be notified under the Act; the Appellant failed to produce any such notification.

On the issue of "perpetual tenancy," the Court reasoned that even if a pagri of ₹1,48,000 was paid, it did not change the legal status of the occupier from a "tenant" to an "owner," nor did it make the tenancy non-terminable, especially since the Rent Agreement allowed the tenant to terminate with two months' notice.

Following the Nopany precedent, the lack of a formal pre-suit notice was cured by the service of the suit summons.

The court held that the Trial Court correctly exercised its discretion under Order XII Rule 6 as no triable issues remained regarding the relationship or the jurisdiction.

It held that the payment of pagri does not create a perpetual interest in the absence of a registered instrument.

The Court dismissed the Regular Second Appeal, upheld the decree of possession, and affirmed that filing the suit served as adequate notice of termination.