MUKTESHWAR PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri vipin Saxena, learned Counsel for the landlord-petitioner and Sri Arvind Srivastava learned Counsel holding brief of Sri H. N. Sharma, Counsel for the tenant-respondent No. 2. ( 2 ) WITH the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is being disposed of finally at this stage. ( 3 ) COUNTER and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. ( 4 ) BY means of this petition, landlord has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and decree dated 13. 9. 1995 passed by respondent No. 1 in prem Kumar v. Virendra Singh whereby the revision was allowed with costs and judgment and decree dated 23. 3. 1987 passed by Judge, small Causes in SCC Suit No. 28 of 1985 was set aside. ( 5 ) IT appears that landlord filed a suit for eviction of tenant-respondent and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages mainly on the ground that the defendant occupied the accommodation in dispute for a period of five months w. e. f. 1/5/1979. Thereafter, he continued as tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 125 and tenancy commenced from first day of English Calendar month. It was pleaded that U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) does not apply. The tenant was served with a notice under Section 106 of t. P. Act. He neither paid arrears of rent nor vacated the shop in question. ( 6 ) THE tenant contested the petition mainly on the ground that the provisions of act were applicable and claimed benefit under section 20 (4) of the Act. ( 7 ) AFTER hearing learned Counsel for the parties and examining the material on record, learned Judge, Small Causes decreed the suit with costs with the finding that the Act was not applicable to the shop in question and tenant had committed default in payment of rent. ( 8 ) THE tenant filed SCC Revision No. 18 of 1987, which was allowed. The Revisional court, however, confirmed the finding of learned Judge, Small Causes on the point that the Act was not applicable to the shop in question and as such, there was no question of extending the benefit of provisions of Section 20 (4) of the Act. The Revisional court, however, confirmed the finding of learned Judge, Small Causes on the point that the Act was not applicable to the shop in question and as such, there was no question of extending the benefit of provisions of Section 20 (4) of the Act. However, the Revisional Court extended benefit of Section 114 of Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter referred to as the t. P. Act) on the ground that the tenant had deposited the arrears of rent, costs of suit and damages etc. on 2. 7. 1986. ( 9 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has urged with vehemence that the Revisional court allowed the revision on a ground which was never taken by the tenant-respondent in his written statement. According to him, none of parties came to the Court with the case that there was a case of forfeiture and a notice was served upon the tenant under Section 111 (g)of the T. P. Act and as such, tenant could not be extended benefit of Section 114 of the T. P. Act. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further contended that landlord served a notice on the tenant under Section 106 T. P. Act mentioning therein that he was a defaulter in payment of rent and other taxes. He, therefore, intended not to allow him to retain the shop as the tenant and he terminated the tenancy. ( 10 ) RELIANCE was placed by learned Counsel for the petitioner on the following decisions:1. Shri Kant Gupta v. XIIIth Additional District Judge, Moradabad and Ors. 2. Mohammad Nasir v. District judge, Nainital and Ors. 3. Ram Bali Pandey (since deceased)through his LRs. v. IInd Additional Judge, Kanpur and Ors. 4. Chandra Shekhar Prasad v. Special Judge/a. D. J. Ballia and Ors. 5. Bhupendra Singh v. Additional district Judge/special Judge (anti-corruption) Dehradun and ors 6. Kumaun Plaza Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Dr. Arvind Sharma and Anr. 7. Kishan Lal Agarwal v. National insurance Company Ltd. and Ors. 8. Vinod Kumar Rastogi v. VIIth Additional District and Sessions judge, Allahabad and Ors. 9. Arun Kumar v. VIIIth Additional district Judge, Budaun and Anr. 10. Pramod Kumar v. III Additional district Judge, Meerut and Ors. Kumaun Plaza Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Dr. Arvind Sharma and Anr. 7. Kishan Lal Agarwal v. National insurance Company Ltd. and Ors. 8. Vinod Kumar Rastogi v. VIIth Additional District and Sessions judge, Allahabad and Ors. 9. Arun Kumar v. VIIIth Additional district Judge, Budaun and Anr. 10. Pramod Kumar v. III Additional district Judge, Meerut and Ors. ( 11 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment and urged that there was no necessity for pleading this point and it was discretion of the Court to extend the benefit of Section 114 of the T. P. Act. The Revisional Court committed no error of law and urged that there was no patent error in the impugned judgment as urged by learned counsel for the petitioner. The contents of notice go to show that there was breach of express condition of agreement between the parties and as such, a notice was served upon the tenant. Mere mentioning of Section 106 of the T. P. Act in the notice is not sufficient. He is support of his contention has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Rakesh wadhawan v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation. It was held by the Apex Court that the discretion to grant relief against forfeiture is not only available to the Trial Court but also to the Appellate Court. ( 12 ) AFTER having considered the rival contentions of learned Counsel for the parties and entire material on record also, I find that this petition has merit and it must succeed. First of all, it is admitted between the parties that there was no rent note or written contract of tenancy. The contract was oral. Looking to the contents of the notice (Annexure-5 to the writ petition), I find that landlord clearly mentioned that initially the shop was let out for a period of five months and, thereafter tenancy became month to month. The tenant did not pay rent to landlord directly and started paying rent through money-order. He, therefore, served a notice on the tenant under Section 106 of the t. P. Act and demanded arrears of rent along with interest. It was clearly mentioned in paras 10 and 10-A of the writ petition also that notice was sent under section 106 and not under Section 114 of the T. P. Act and tenancy of the respondent was month to month. It was clearly mentioned in paras 10 and 10-A of the writ petition also that notice was sent under section 106 and not under Section 114 of the T. P. Act and tenancy of the respondent was month to month. ( 13 ) IT was clearly held in Shree Kant guptas case (supra), that when the tenancy has been terminated under Section 111 (g) of the T. P. Act, benefit under Section 114 can be extended. In Mohammad Nasirs case (supra), it was clearly held that for determining the lease by forfeiture not only existence of one or more of the three contingencies is necessary but the lessor wishing to determine the lease for forfeiture must also give a notice in writing to the lessee of his intention to determine the lease. The right of forfeiture is limited to those cases where the tenant has been guilty of some kind of misconduct which provided a right to re-entry to the lessor. It was further held that Section 114 of the T. P. Act confers a power on the Court to grant an equitable relief to the defaulting lessee. In order to claim benefit of this section, it has to be shown by the tenant that one of the terms of the lease was that the landlord will have a right of re-entry if the rent for any specified period remained unpaid and he has to show further that forfeiture has been incurred as provided under Section 111 (g ). Section 114 of T. P. Act applies to those cases where the landlord invokes his rights under what is known as forfeiture clauses and determines the lease by forfeiture and sues for the ejectment of the tenant. Section 114 of T. P. Act applies to those cases where the landlord invokes his rights under what is known as forfeiture clauses and determines the lease by forfeiture and sues for the ejectment of the tenant. ( 14 ) SECTION 111 (g) of the T. P. Act runs as under: a lease of immovable property determines- (g) by forfeiture; that is to say, (1) in case the lessee breaks an express condition which provides that on breach, thereof, the lessor may re-enter or (2) in case the lessee renounces his character as such by setting up a title in a third person or by claiming title in himself, or (3) the lessee is adjudicated as insolvent and the lease provides that the lessor may re-enter on the happening of such event; and in (in any of the cases), the lessor or his transferee gives notice in writing to the lessee of his intention to determine the lease, then and then alone, the tenant is entitled to the benefit of Section 114 of the t. P. Act. ( 15 ) IN the present case, 1 am clearly of the opinion that tenancy of the tenant-respondent was not determined under Section 111 (g)of the T. P. Act and as such, there was no question of extending benefit to the tenant under section 114 of the T. P. Act on the ground that he had deposited the arrears of rent etc. ( 16 ) NO other point has been pressed in this petition. ( 17 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, I hold that learned Revisional Court has committed error of law and as such the finding is not sustainable. I, therefore, hold that this petition has substance and has to be allowed. The order impugned is liable to be quashed. ( 18 ) IN the result, the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 13. 9. 1995 passed by the respondent No. 1 is hereby quashed and judgment and degree dated 23. 3. 1987 passed by the Judge Small causes is restored. Costs on parties. The order impugned is liable to be quashed. ( 18 ) IN the result, the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 13. 9. 1995 passed by the respondent No. 1 is hereby quashed and judgment and degree dated 23. 3. 1987 passed by the Judge Small causes is restored. Costs on parties. ( 19 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent has prayed that the tenant may be directed to vacate the shop and deliver its peaceful vacant possession to landlord within a period of three months from today provided he deposits the entire decretal amount and damages due till the time of delivery of possession in Trial Court within a period of two months from today. ( 20 ) THE tenant is allowed three months time from today to vacate the shop in question and to deliver the vacant and peaceful possession to the landlord provided if the tenant deposits the entire decretal amount along with damages in the Trial Court within a period of two months from today and furnishes an undertaking on the affidavit in the Trial Court within a period of one month from today. Petition allowed. .