IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA R.S.A. No. 562 of 2009 Decided on : 12.5.2011 Balbir Kaur …Appellant. Versus Bikal Thakur ..Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the appellant : Mr. Ashok Kumar Sood, Advocate For the respondent : None. Kuldip Singh , Judge ( Oral ) This appeal has been directed against judgment, decree dated 3.10.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge (1), Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Appeal No. 94-D/2004 affirming judgment, decree dated 30.10.2004 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Court No.1, Dharamshala in Civil Suit No. 65 of 2003. 2. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that notice Ex.PW-1/C is not in conformity with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act inasmuch as notice does not end with the end of tenancy month. It has also been submitted that there was a written agreement between the parties in which 30 days period has been provided for terminating the tenancy. It has not been denied by the learned counsel for the appellant that Section 106 of the Transfer of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes 2 Property Act is not applicable in the area where the suit property is located. In the absence of applicability of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the notice does not require to end with the end of the tenancy month. The learned Additional District Judge has relied Siri Ram vs. Pritam Singh, AIR 1978, H.P. 30 that as per Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act also reasonable time is required to be given to the tenant. The agreement between the parties as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant has not been placed on record. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has also pointed out that the shop in question is situated outside the local jurisdiction of the trial Court. This objection was not taken in the beginning but lateron an application was filed for amendment of the plaint before the learned Additional District Judge which was rejected. As per Section 21 CPC such objection is required to be taken in the court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled at or before such settlement, and unless there has been consequent failure of justice. The plea of the appellant for taking the objection of the jurisdiction was rejected by the learned Additional District Judge. In addition to this, no plea of prejudice and consequent failure of justice was ever taken by the appellant for trial of the suit by the trial Court. Thus, seen from any angle, there is no merit in the appeal. No substantial question of law is involved. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. ( Kuldip Singh ), May 12, 2011 Judge. (GR)