1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.701 OF 2008 Smt.Hasumati Ratilal Shah & Ors.. .. Appellants V/s Shri.Nariman Nadarsha Jamshedwala. .. Respondent Mr.V.M.Parshurami i/by Mr.Ashish S.Gaikwad for the Appellants. Mr.Rajesh C.Shah for Respondent. CORAM : R.G.KETKAR, J. 26th March, 2010. P.C.: 1. This appeal is preferred by the Appellants-original Defendants challenging the judgment and decree dated 3rd September, 2005 passed by learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Divison, Dahanu, Thane as also the judgment and decree dated 13th June, 2008 passed by learned District Judge, Palghar. The Courts below decreed the suit instituted by the Respondent original plaintiff for recovery of possession of Gala No.1 situate in Grampanchayat House No.17 of Ashagad. 2. Respondent plaintiff issued notice on 31st January, 2000 (Exh.31) thereby terminating the tenancy on expiry of 31st March, 2000. Since there was no compliance, suit was instituted for recovery of possession on 26th April, 2000. The suit was filed invoking various grounds available under the Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short the Act ). The Appellants Defendants resisted the suit on various “ ” grounds including the applicability of the Bombay Rent Act. In view of 2 this the Respondent Plaintiff gave purshis at Exh.30 giving up his case under the Act and contending that the suit would be governed by the provisions of Transfer of Property Act. 3. The trial Court as well as the Appellate Court decreed the suit against which original Defendants have preferred this Second Appeal. In support of this appeal Mr.V.M.Parshurami, learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that the Respondent Plaintiff had initially instituted suit under the Act and on the Defendants raising objection about the applicability of the Act, the Respondent Plaintiff gave purshis under the Act. He submitted that it was not open either to the Trial Court or to the Appellate Court simply on the basis of purshis given by the Respondent Plaintiff to treat the suit under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The Trial Court as well as the Appellant Court did not consider the pleadings made by the parties, which has resulted into miscarriage of justice. On the other hand Mr.Rajesh Shah, learned counsel for the Respondent-plaintiff supported the decree. 4. As indicated earlier, initially the Respondent-plaintiff instituted suit invoking the grounds available under the Act, and on account of objection raised by the Appellants Defendants as regards to applicability of the Act, purshis was given by the Respondent-Plaintiff giving up the case under the Act and requesting the Court to treat the suit under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. On that basis the parties proceeded with the case. Even today, it is not in dispute that the suit 3 premises are not governed by the Act. If that be, the only question is about validity of the notice given by the Respondent Plaintiff on 31st January, 2000. The Courts below have recorded that the tenancy of the appellants was monthly tenancy. Considering the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the notice of 15 days is required for terminating the tenancy. In the instant case, notice at Exh.31 was issued on 31st January, 2000 terminating the tenancy of the Defendants by 31st March, 2000. The requirement laid down u/s.106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 having been complied with, I find no error committed by the Courts below in decreeing the suit instituted by the Respondent Plaintiff. Second Appeal does not involve any question of law much less substantial question of law. Hence, Second Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (R.G.KETKAR, J.)