### Notice under Section 106 TP Act is valid if suit is filed after statutory period despite shorter notice duration.

The plaintiff (landlord) filed a suit for recovery of rent arrears and ejectment against the defendant (tenant) regarding a shop in District Una, H.P.

The plaintiff alleged a lease agreement dated 1.1.2000 at ₹800/month, later increased to ₹1,000/month, with arrears totaling ₹21,000.

A notice of termination (Ex. P3) was served on 18.1.2005, giving the tenant until 31.1.2005 to vacate.

The Trial Court decreed the suit for recovery and possession.

The Appellate Court upheld the recovery but set aside the decree for possession, ruling the termination notice invalid for providing only 14 days’ notice instead of the 15 days required under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property (TP) Act.

1. Whether the tenancy of the respondent was lawfully terminated by the appellant by serving notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act?

2. Whether the respondent waived the objection regarding the invalidity of the notice under Section 106 by failing to challenge it earlier?

Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, specifically sub-section (3), which provides that a notice is not invalid merely because the period falls short of 15 days, provided the suit is filed after the expiry of the statutory period.

Principle from Harihar Banerji v. Ramsashi Roy (1918) and Bhagabandas Agarwalla v. Bhagwandas Kanu (1977) that notices to quit must be construed in a common-sense manner rather than a hyper-technical one.

Per Parwati Bai v. Radhika (2003) and Dharam Pal v. Harbans Singh (2006), any objection to the validity or insufficiency of a notice under Section 106 must be raised specifically at the earliest stage or it is deemed waived.

The Court found that although the notice (Ex. P3) provided less than 15 days to vacate, the plaintiff filed the suit on 17.2.2005, which was well after the expiry of the 15-day period from the date of service (18.1.2005).

Under the amended Section 106(3), this timing validates the notice.

The Court observed that the defendant's written statement only vaguely termed the notice "illegal" and failed to specifically plead the insufficiency of the notice period.

Consequently, the defendant was deemed to have waived this objection.

The Appellate Court erred by entertaining a hyper-technical objection that was neither pleaded in the written statement nor included in the memorandum of first appeal.

The High Court set aside the Appellate Court's judgment regarding possession and restored the Trial Court's decree, ordering the defendant to hand over vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff.