Having lost in both the Courts, this second appeal has been filed by the tenant against the judgment and decree of the learned Assistant District Judge No. 2, Cachar at Silchar in Title Appeal No. 64 of 1975. 2. The suit was filed on behalf of the deity Sri Panchananda Shib by the Sabait/Mahanta 1 ate Lasman Giri. During the pendency of the litigation Lasman Giri died and the present Manager was allowed to continue the legal proceedings on behalf of the deity. 3. Briefly stated, the case of the plaintiff is that by a lease dated 26.3.1954 Sabait Lasman Giri leased out an area of 1 Bigha, 2 Katha, 11 Chatak of land to one Banka Behari Purkayastha who relinquished the land in favour of the deity by a deed dated 1.12.63. However, the present appellant-defendant filed a suit being Title Suit No. 53 of 1954 against said Banka Behari Purkayastha and one Smti Suruchi Bala Nandi claiming her jute right and possession in respect of 1/2 of the land covered by suit Dag No. 769 of Patta No. 59 of Mouza-Silchar town, Pargana Barakpar District-Cachar. In the said suit the deity was not made a party. According to the defendant-appellant the suit land was leased out by Sabait Someswarananda Giri by a deed dated 21.2.49 to the present defendant-appellant and Smt. Suruchi Bala Nandi. But Suruchi Bala sold the entire land to Banka Behari Purkayastha and as such the present defendant-appellant had to file the above Title Suit No.53 of 1954 claiming jute right over 1/2 partition of the land and also for possession by partition. The said suit was decreed in favour of the present defendant-appellant and decree was upheld by this Court. There is no dispute that the period of lease dated 21.2.49 executed by Someswarananda Giri in favour of the present defendant-appellant and Suruchi Bala was for 10 years only commencing from 9th Falgun, 1355 B. S. The present defendant-appellant obtained the final decree in the said Title Suit No. 53 of 1954 on 19.3.1965 and after getting possession constructed house on the land. According to the plaintiff-respondent in view of the above Title Suit, the interest of the deity over the suit land was clouded and as such a notice to quit dated 23.12.1964 was issued and received by the present defendant-appellant on 22.1.1965. According to the plaintiff-respondent in view of the above Title Suit, the interest of the deity over the suit land was clouded and as such a notice to quit dated 23.12.1964 was issued and received by the present defendant-appellant on 22.1.1965. By the said notice, the defendant appellant was asked to Vacate and hand over the possession of the suit land within 8th Magha, 1371 B. S. According to the defendant-appellant, the deed of lease dated 26.3.1954 and deed of relinquishment dated 1.12.1963 between Lasman Giri, on behalf of the deity and Banka Bthari Purkayastha were fake and collusive. The defendant-appellant has also pleaded that she is entitled to claim benefit under section 5 of the Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1955, for short, 'the Act' as she constructed permanent structure and as such she cannot be evicted. 4. As many as 7 issues were framed by the learned trial Court. Learned trial Court held on the basis of revenue records, exhibit-1 that Someswarananda Giri was the Sabait at the relevant time and as such the lease deed, exhibit-6 executed by him in favour of the present defendant-appellant and Smt. Suruchibala was a valid one as has been held in Title Suit No. 53/54. According to learned trial Court, the present defendant-appellant got possession of the suit land only after the final decree passed on 19.3.65 in the above suit. From the above fact and also the averments made in paragraph 29 (1) of the written statement, the learned trial Court held that no permanent structure was constructed on the suit land within 5 years from the date of the execution of the lease deed and as such the present defen­dant-appellant is not entitled to the protection under section 5 of the Act. This was also the finding of the learned lower appellate Court. In this Second Appeal this finding of fact that the present defendant-appellant did not raise any permanent structure within 5 years as envisaged under section 5 of the Act cannot be assailed. 5. Mr. Sen, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the benefit of the permanent structure erected by the earlier tenant on the suit land is also available to the present appellant. 5. Mr. Sen, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the benefit of the permanent structure erected by the earlier tenant on the suit land is also available to the present appellant. From the judg­ments of the learned lower Courts below, I do not find any such permanent construction on the suit land erected either by Banka Behari or co-tenant Smt. Suruchi Bala Devi. On the other hand the learned trial Court clearly held that co-tenant Smt. Suruchi Bala did not construct any permanent structure on any part of the land covered by lease deed, exhibit-6 within 5 years from the date of the execu­tion of the lease deed. Hence, the contention of Mr. Sen has no force. 6. An attempt was made before this Court that Lasman Giri was not the Sabaiet and as such the suit is not maintainable. This is a question of fact and in deciding issue No. 4, the learned trial Court has held that after Someswarananda Giri, Lasman Giri was the sabaiet of the deity and this finding was also accepted by the learned lower appellate Court, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in this finding and as such the contention has no force. 7. Mr. Sen, learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the the tenancy was not terminated by a valid notice as required under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act. The lease deed was for a period of 10 years and the suit was filed after 8 years of the expiry of the said deed. The learned lower appellate Court has held that there was a determination of the lease by eflux of time as provided under Section 111 of the Tran­sfer of Property Act and that the appellant respondent continued as a tenant by holding over as provided under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act. According to learned lower appellate Court a tenant by holding over is not entitled to a notice determining the tenancy. 8. Exhibit-2 is the notice asking the appellant-defendant to vacate the suit premises by 9th Magha as the original tenancy continued from 8th Falguna, the notice was received on 22.1.1965. According to learned lower appellate Court a tenant by holding over is not entitled to a notice determining the tenancy. 8. Exhibit-2 is the notice asking the appellant-defendant to vacate the suit premises by 9th Magha as the original tenancy continued from 8th Falguna, the notice was received on 22.1.1965. There is no dispute at the Bar that the said notice was received IS days prior to 9th Magha i.e. expiring with the end of the month of the tenancy as required under Section Io6 of the Transfer of Property Act. There is no dispute that by the notice, exhibit-2, the tenancy was not determined in clear terms but defendant-appellant was asked to vacate the suit land. Now the question is whether notice is bad as the tenancy was not determined in clear terms la my opinion, the basic question is whether a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is at all necessary for eviction of a tenant who is protected under the provisions of the Act in question, namely, Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1955. 9. The question whether for eviction of a tenant from a premises under Rent Acts of the State Legislature came up before various High Courts and also Supreme Court and there were conflicting decisions on this point. The entire case law on the subject was reviewed by a 7-member Bench of the Supreme Court in Dhanapal Chettiar vs. Yesodai Animal, AIR 1979. S.C. 1745 and their Lordships set at rest ail disputes negativing the necessity of a notice under the Transfer o£ Property Act for the purpose of evicting a tenant under the State Rent Control Act, This decision was also followed by the Apex Court in Satpal vs. Hira Lal, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 1738. I am tempted to quote below the observations at page-664 in the Transfer of property Act ( tenth edition ) by S. M. Lahiri. The learned author states as follows : "The landlord and the tenant relatipns occupy a pre-eminent position in the property law of India. The simplifiction of the law and the elimination of technicalities achieved by the decision of the Supreme Court in the Dhinapal Chettiar's case will have a sobering effect on the recalcitrant tenants and will also pave the way to the satisfactory adjustment of the relations between the landlord and the tenant." 10. The simplifiction of the law and the elimination of technicalities achieved by the decision of the Supreme Court in the Dhinapal Chettiar's case will have a sobering effect on the recalcitrant tenants and will also pave the way to the satisfactory adjustment of the relations between the landlord and the tenant." 10. In Dhanapal Chettiar (supra), it was held that in order to get a decree for an eviction against a tenant under any State Rent Control Act, it is not necessary to give notice under Section 106 of the Trans for of property Act and determination of a lease in accordance with the said Act is unnecessary and a mere surplusage because the landlord cannot get eviction of the tenant even after such determination and further the tenant continues to be so even thereafter. 11. From the long title of the Act in question it follows that the legislation was enacted to regulate in certain respects the relationship of landlord and tenant in respect of the non-Agricultural land in urban areas in the State of Assam. Clause (g) of Section 3 of the Act defines the word 'tenant' and in the said definition, it is inter alia, provided that a person who is in possession of any land continues to be a tenant even after determination of his tenancy in respect of that land. Section 5 of the Act gives protection to a tenant from eviction. He cannot be evicted from the land if he constructs permanent structure within 5 years from the date of the lease. It further provides that a tenant cannot be evicted except in execution of a decree for ejectment passed by a competent civil Court. Section 7, 8 and 9 of the Act contained provisions for enhancement of the rent and Section 10 deals with realization of 'Salami'. Section 11 provides for notice of ejectment which runs as follows : "No suit for ejectment except for arrears of rent shall be instituted until after the expiration of one month from the date of the receipt by the tenant of a notice in writing by the landlord requiring the tenant to surrender possess­ion of the land in favour of the landlord." 12. Thus from the provisions of the Act, it follows that the Act in question was enacted by the Legislature in order to regulate the relationship between landlord and tenant in respect of non-Agricultural land in urban areas of the State. A tenant who is protected under the provisions of the Act cannot be evicted unless a notice as required under Section 11 of the Act is served and the suit is filed after one month of the expiration of the said notice. Section 11 does not apply in cases for arrears of rent. This provision has been put by the Legislature in view of sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Act. which, inter alia, provides that no decree for ejectment passed on the ground of non-payment of rent shall be executed within a period of 30 days from the date of the decree and if the tenant pays into the Court the entire amount payable under decree within the aforesaid period and in the event of such payment the Court shall record the decree as satisfied. 13. A lease is terminable by notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and the lease of immovable property determines on the expiration of the said notice as provided under Section 11) of the Transfer of Property Act. As stated earlier under clause (g) of Section 3 of the Act in question even if a tenancy is terminated by issuance of a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the tenancy of the tenant continues in respect of the land in question. So a tenant cannot be evicted merely by issuing a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Ac; as tenancy continues and for the purpose of his eviction a notice under Section 11 of the Act is necessary. 14. So as held by the Apex Court in Dhanapal Chettiar (supra) such a notice under the Transfer of Property Act is a mere surplusage because the landlord cannot get eviction of the tenant even after determination of the lease by a notice under Section 106 of the Trans­fer of Property Act. Therefore, such a notice is unnecessary. 14. So as held by the Apex Court in Dhanapal Chettiar (supra) such a notice under the Transfer of Property Act is a mere surplusage because the landlord cannot get eviction of the tenant even after determination of the lease by a notice under Section 106 of the Trans­fer of Property Act. Therefore, such a notice is unnecessary. I, therefore 1-old that for eviction of a tenant who is protected under the Act ia question, namely, the Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1955, a notice determining the tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of property Act is unnecessary. 15- In view of the above decision on the question of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, it is not necessary to consider whether the said notice, namely, exhibit-2 fulfills the requirement of the provisions of said Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. 16. This Court had occasion to consider Section 11 of the Act and notice under the Transfer of Property Act. In Mira Khumbi vs. Usha Ranjan Bhadra, AIR 1966 Assam 118, it was held that there can be no bar to one composite notice being given under Section 11 of the Act and under the Transfer of Property Act. In that case the question whether notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is necessary or not was not considered. So the above ratio is of no help for the purpose of ascertaining whether notice under Transfer of Property Act is necessary or not. 17. The notice in question was served on the defendant on 22.1.65 and by the said notice the defendant-appellant was asked to hand over possession of the land. The present suit was filed on 2.7.1965, therefore, all the requirements of Section 11 of the Act have been fulfilled and as such the suit is not bad for want of valid notice as urged by Mr. Sen, learned counsel for the appellant-defendant. 18. For the reasons stated above, I hold that a valid notice under Sec. 11 of the Act was served on the present defendant-appellant and that she is not entitled to get protection under Section 5 of the Act as urged. 19. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I leave the parties to bear their own costs.