1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.774 OF 2007 Shri Narayan Dagdu Tatruk & anr. Apellants vs. Shri Laxman Janu Bhaud Respondent Mr.Mandar Limaye for the Appellants. Mr.P.S.Dani for the Respondent. CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. DATED : 3rd June, 2008 P.C. The Appellants-original defendants being aggrieved by the decree for vacant possession of portion of land in question and as confirmed by the lower Appellate Court also has preferred the present Second Appeal. 2. The learned counsel for the Appellants basically contended that the lease of land for residence purpose was for one year and, therefore, in pursuance to Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the notice of 15 days is insufficient and not correct. The notice of termination should have been minimum six months. Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act makes its position very clear which is as under: "106.(1) In the absence of a contract or local law or usage to the contrary, a lease of immovable property for agricultural or manufacturing purposes shall be deemed to be a lease from year to year, terminable, on the 2 part of either lessor or lessee, by six months’ notice; and a lease of immovable property for any other purpose shall be deemed to be a lease from month to month, terminable, on the part of either lessor or lessee, by fifteen days’ notice. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the period mentioned in sub-section (1) shall commence from the date of receipt of notice. (3) A notice under sub-section (1) shall not be deemed to be invalid merely because the period mentioned therein falls short of the period specified under that sub-section, where a suit or proceeding is filed after the expiry of the period mentioned in that sub-section. (4) Every notice under sub-section (1) must be in writing, signed by or on behalf of the person giving it, and either be sent by post to the party who is intended to be bound by it or be tendered or delivered personally to such party, or to one of his family or servants at his residence, or (if such tender or delivery is not practicable affixed to a conspicuous part of the property." 3. Admittedly, the land is in possession of the Appellants only for residence for one year. It was never handed over to use for any agricultural or manufacturing purpose. In this background the 15 days notice itself is valid. 4. Whatever construction made initially of a hut and later on a permanent structure by the Appellant that itself cannot be the reason to consider above submission of the Appellant in this regard. If the land as such given for residence for utilising it for residence purpose by constructing a hut and/or further 3 construction in no way changes the basic nature of agreement between the parties. The appellant being owner of the premises so constructed, is entitled to remove it. 5. In this background, the findings so given by the courts below holding that the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the suit land pursuance to the material as well as the evidence led by the parties and as it is within the frame work of law and the record, there is no case to interfere with the same. 6. There is no substantial question of law and/or any perversity in the present matter. The Second Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. [ANOOP [ANOOP [ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.] V. MOHTA,J.] V. MOHTA,J.]