JUDGMENT - M.L. DUDHAT, J. :---The only question of law to be decided in this second appeal is whether the lower appellate Court was entitled to grant the relief of forfeiture under section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act in favour of the appellant-tenant. 2. The appellant in this case is the original plaintiff. It is the case of the appellant - Solapur Zilla Parishad, Solapur, District Solapur, that they are the owners of a shop premises bearing Shop No. 11 of Municipal House No. 116, City Survey No. 8503 and 8504, locally known as Jawaharlal Nehru Vidyarthi Vastigraha, situated at Murarji Peth, Solapur. It is the case of the plaintiff that the said shop was given on leave and licence agreement dated 30th May, 1979 on a licence fee of Rs. 350/- per month to the defendant. According to the plaintiff, respondent-defendant had committed defaults and, therefore, the plaintiff filed a suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 815 of 1983 for recovery of possession of the suit shop and also for recovery of arrears of rent. It is case of the defendant that though he had agreed to pay rent of Rs. 350/- per month but denied charging of interest on account of Municipal taxes. Defendant also denied plaintiffs claim to get possession of the suit premises. It was further contended on behalf of the defendant that the tenancy of the said shop premises was for a period of seven years and, therefore, the plaintiff had no right to terminate the tenancy before the expiry of seven years. It was contended on behalf of the defendant that since the tenancy was from year-to-year, notice of six months ought to have been given before filing the suit. The trial Court held that the leave and licence agreement in this case stipulates a condition that the period of the licence would be for one year and the same can be continued for a further period of seven years. Therefore, according to the trial Court the period of the licence was for one year only. Trial Court held that in view of that, the notice given under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was valid. The trial Court also held that the defendant was in arrears of rent and, therefore, passed a decree of eviction against the defendant and also directed the defendant to pay an amount of Rs. Trial Court held that in view of that, the notice given under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was valid. The trial Court also held that the defendant was in arrears of rent and, therefore, passed a decree of eviction against the defendant and also directed the defendant to pay an amount of Rs. 11,533.13p. to the plaintiff. Since the defendant had already paid an amount of Rs. 2,100/- and Rs. 10,574.48p. during the pendency of the suit, the same amount was directed to be adjusted against the decretal amount of Rs. 11,533.13p. The trial Court also allowed the claim of mesne profits. 3. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by IV Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Solapur, dated 3-3-1988, the respondent-defendant preferred an appeal before the IInd Addl. District Judge, Solapur, being Civil Appeal No. 276 of 1988. The lower appellate Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to claim arrears of rent and also the Municipal taxes as claimed. The lower appellate Court also held that the notice as given was valid and legal. However, the lower appellate Court held that the defendant was entitled to claim the relief of forfeiture under section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, more particularly, when he had deposited an amount of about Rs. 10,000/- in Court. In view of the aforesaid findings, the lower appellate Court partly allowed the appeal. Against the decision of the lower appellate Court, the plaintiff has preferred this second appeal. 4. Mr. Nitin Jamdar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-plaintiff contended that in view of the fact that the licence or the tenancy was monthly and further that it was terminated under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the case of the plaintiff comes within the purview of section 111-H of the Transfer of Property Act and not within the purview of section 111-G of the Transfer of Property Act. In view of this, it was contended on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff, that there was no question of granting relief against forfeiture. On the other hand, Mr. In view of this, it was contended on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff, that there was no question of granting relief against forfeiture. On the other hand, Mr. Nitin P. Dalvi, learned Counsel for the respondent-defendant strenuously contended that the tenancy was for seven years in the year 1979 and the said tenancy was terminated by the notice dated 27-5-1983 and, therefore, there was forfeiture of a period of about two years and, therefore, the lower appellate Court was justified in granting the relief against forfeiture. 5. Heard both the sides at length. In this matter, both the lower Courts have given a concurrent finding to the effect that the tenancy was monthly and not yearly. Both the lower Courts have also given a concurrent finding that the notice of termination given by the plaintiff to the defendant under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was valid and legal. If that is so, then, in that event, the monthly tenancy can be terminated under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, there is no question of granting relief against forfeiture. According to me, the lower appellate Court must bear in mind that the concept of termination of tenancy on account of forfeiture and the concept of termination of tenancy by notice to quit under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act are two distinct and independent concepts. It is true that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the plaintiff terminated the tenancy of the defendant on the ground that the defendant was a defaulter, but in view of the fact that the tenancy of the defendant was monthly tenancy terminated by a valid notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, no forfeiture was incurred by the defendant, because the tenancy was not of any fixed period. Therefore, there is no question of any forfeiture of the tenancy enforced by the plaintiff on the defendant. In this case, in view of the fact that the tenancy between the plaintiff and the defendant was monthly tenancy and further in view of the fact that there was no forfeiture of any period of the tenancy, the lower appellate Court erred in granting the relief against forfeiture under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, the decision of the lower appellate Court is liable to be set aside. 6. Therefore, the decision of the lower appellate Court is liable to be set aside. 6. Hence, this second appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 27-8-1991 passed by the learned IInd Additional District Judge, Solapur, in Civil Appeal No. 276 of 1988 is set aside and the judgment and decree dated 3-3-1988 passed by the learned IVth Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Solapur, in Regular Civil Suit No. 815 of 1983 is restored. There shall be no order as to costs. Certified copy be issued expeditiously. Appeal allowed. *****