Contractual tenancy requires valid notice to quit; mere denial of title does not automatically forfeit the lease.

Where eviction is sought on the footing of a subsisting contractual month-to-month tenancy, the landlord must first determine the tenancy by a valid notice to quit under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882; absent that notice, the eviction petition was not maintainable. A tenant's mere denial of the landlord's title did not, by itself, determine the lease by forfeiture under Section 111(g) or dispense with notice, because forfeiture operates only in the manner provided by law. The eviction order could not stand since the tenancy had not been validly terminated.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an eviction petition based on a contractual tenancy was maintainable in the absence of a notice to quit under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. (ii) Whether the tenant's denial of the landlord's title resulted in determination of the lease by forfeiture under Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 so as to dispense with notice.

Issue (i): Whether an eviction petition based on a contractual tenancy was maintainable in the absence of a notice to quit under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Analysis: The eviction claim rested on the landlord's assertion of a subsisting month-to-month contractual tenancy. In such a case, the landlord's right to recover possession arises only after the tenancy is determined in the manner recognised by law. The rent control setting did not displace the basic requirement that the contractual tenancy be brought to an end by a valid notice to quit, and the tenant was entitled to raise this objection in revision because it went to the root of maintainability.

Conclusion: The petition for eviction was not maintainable without a valid notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Issue (ii): Whether the tenant's denial of the landlord's title resulted in determination of the lease by forfeiture under Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 so as to dispense with notice.

Analysis: A mere assertion of title by the tenant does not by itself end the lease. Forfeiture under Section 111(g) operates only in the manner provided by law, and the landlord must still elect to determine the lease through the statutory mode contemplated by the provision. The tenant's stand that he owned the property therefore did not automatically extinguish the tenancy or eliminate the need for notice.

Conclusion: Denial of title did not, by itself, determine the lease by forfeiture so as to dispense with notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Final Conclusion: The eviction order could not stand because the tenancy had not been validly terminated in accordance with law, and the tenant's challenge succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where eviction is sought on the footing of a subsisting contractual tenancy, the landlord must first determine the tenancy by a valid notice to quit, and a tenant's mere denial of the landlord's title does not automatically bring the lease to an end.

---