IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO.166 OF 2008. APPEAL NO.166 OF 2008. APPEAL NO.166 OF 2008. Shashikant Sitaram Jadhav ...Appellant Versus. Smt Sunanda Shankar Dhumal ...Respondent Miss Alpa Javeri for the Appellant. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 04th MARCH, 2008. : 04th MARCH, 2008. : 04th MARCH, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Not on board. Taken on board. 1. Heard advocate for the appellant. The appellant is the original defendant-tenant. The respondent- landlord filed a suit for eviction after service of notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1882). The trial Court decreed the suit by holding that notice of termination of tenancy was legal and valid. The appeal preferred by the appellant to the District Court stands dismissed. Admittedly, provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 are not applicable to the suit premises. 2. The submission of the advocate for the appellant is that the description of the suit property in the plaint, notice of termination and evidence was different. Her submission is that the entire amount of : 2 : 2 : 2 : rent was paid by the appellant-defendant and therefore, there could not have been a decree for eviction. 3. I have considered the submissions. This is not a case where respondent-landlord has determined the tenancy on the ground of breach of terms and conditions of the tenancy relating to payment of rent. The termination is simplicitor under section 106 of the said Act of 1882. Therefore, even assuming that the appellant has paid entire rent, the question of granting relief against forfeiture does not arise. There are concurrent findings recorded by the courts below regarding the validity and legality of the notice of termination. As stated earlier, the appellant is not protected by the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. Hence, no substantial question of law arises and the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 4. At this stage the learned advocate for the appellant prays for grant of a longer time to vacate on the ground that the appellant is in possession of the suit premises for fairly long time and is carrying on business therein for earning livelihood. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the decree for possession shall not be executed till 31st March, 2009 subject to condition of the appellant filing usual : 3 : 3 : 3 : undertaking in this Court to vacate the suit premises. Undertaking shall be filed within period of four weeks from today. If undertaking is not filed within the stipulated period four weeks, decree for possession will become executable. 5. Civil Application No.464 of 2008 does not survive and the same is rejected. Judge. Judge. Judge.