JUDGMENT Hon’ble D.P. Singh, J.—Heard Sri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri R.C. Pal for the petitioner and Sri A.K. Gupta for the contesting respondent. 2. This petition is directed against concurrent orders dated 27.2.2009 and 22.1.2009 by which the suit for eviction filed by the respondent-landlord has been decreed against the petitioner by both the Courts below. 3. The respondent-landlord instituted an eviction suit No. 57 of 2001 before the Judge, Small Causes Court for eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the disputed premises, inter alia on the ground that the petitioner was a tenant of the disputed premises but had defaulted in payment of rent from 1.2.1991 to 31.8.2001 and had created subtenancy. It was further stated that it is a new construction and also since it belongs to a society, U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was not applicable. It was further pleaded that despite a notice terminating the tenancy, neither the premises were vacated nor the rent paid, forcing him to file the suit. The petitioner-tenant admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant but disputed the subtenancy and the rate of rent and he further stated that he had tendered the amount of rent and damages and was entitled to the benefit of the Act which applied in the present case. 4. After the parties had entered their evidence, the trial Court framed as many as five issues including the issues as to whether the notice terminating the tenancy was valid and whether the petitioner was entitled to benefit of Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act and also whether the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 was applicable and the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of deposit under Section 20(4) thereof. 5. The trial Court vide its impugned judgment held that the Act was not applicable to the premises in dispute on both counts and further that the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was valid but since it was a simplicitor notice terminating the tenancy, the petitioner was not entitled to benefit of Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter referred as T.P. Act) and on the question of subtenancy, it held that the petitioner had created subtenancy. The aforesaid judgment has been upheld in revision. 6. The aforesaid judgment has been upheld in revision. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the finding relating to applicability of the Act. However, he has urged that the petitioner was entitled to benefit of Section 114 of the T.P. Act and which issue was not considered by the revisional Court. It is also urged that the finding with regard to subtenancy was based on no evidence and therefore is vitiated. 7. No doubt, the revisional Court has not considered whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of Section 114 of the T.P. Act but it appears that this issue was not raised during the arguments before it. The revisional Court has noted down all the arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner who had claimed the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act but since it affirmed the finding with regard to non-applicability of the Act, it refused to give any benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act. There is no pleading in the writ petition also that this issue was specifically raised during arguments before the revisional Court. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard at length on this issue. 8. Before the Court proceeds to deal with this argument, it would be necessary to notice Section 106 and Section 114 of the T.P. Act which is quoted below : “106. Duration of certain leases in absence of written contract or local usage.—(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 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. (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.” Section 114. Relief against forfeiture for non-payment of rent.—Where a lease of immovable property has been determined by forfeiture for non-payment of rent, and the lessor sues to eject the lessee, if, at the hearing of the suit, the lessee pays or tenders to the lessor the rent in arrears, together with interest thereon and his full costs of the suit or gives such security as the Court thinks sufficient for making such payment within fifteen days, the Court may, in lieu of making a decree for ejectment, pass an order relieving the lessee against the forfeiture; and thereupon the lessee shall hold the property leased as if the forfeiture had not occurred.” 9. Section 106 of the T.P. Act speaks about termination of tenancy simplicitor while Section 114 of the T.P. Act speaks about relieving of a lessee from eviction where the lease is determined by forfeiture. Though the word ‘forfeiture’ has not been defined under the T.P. Act, in view of Section 111(g), it means loss of legal right on breach of an obligation. Copy of the notice is on record which shows that the tenancy was terminated simplicitor. Recently, a learned Single Judge of this Court in an exhaustive judgment in the case of B.R. Trading Company and another v. Dharam Raj Sahu and others, 2008(3) ARC 148, after considering several decisions of this Court and also the Apex Court has held that where a tenancy is determined by a notice under Section 106 of the T.P. Act without forfeiture as provided under Section 111(g), the lessee/tenant would not be entitled to the benefit of Section 114 of the T.P. Act. Counsel for the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the tenancy was terminated under Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act. Accordingly, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. 10. Once it is held that the tenancy of the petitioner was not saved by Section 114 of the T.P. Act, question of subletting becomes irrelevant. 11. For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected. ————