JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent even though the case was taken up in the revised list and was heard for about an hour. Perused the record. 2. Ganesh Prasad Dalal Dharmashala is owner of premises no.26/33 Birhana Road, Kanpur Road where the contesting respondent was a tenant in a shop situated in the premises @ Rs.25/- per month apart from taxes. It terminated the tenancy of the respondent tenant vide notice dated 21.10.1997 and when the tenant did not handover vacant possession, suit no.299 of 1998 was instituted in the Court of Judge, Small Causes Court at Kanpur claiming his eviction on the basis of the arrears of rent. The case set up was that the petitioner is a public charitable institution and therefore, the provisions of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred as the 'Act') were not applicable and the tenant was liable for eviction. Initially the suit was decreed vide order dated 20.8.2002, but on revision it was remanded to the trial court to consider whether it was a public charitable institution or a private trust. After remand vide order dated 8.8.2005, the Court held that it was a private charitable institution and therefore the Act would be applicable and the suit was dismissed on the ground that default of four months was not proved. It was also found that the provisions of Sections 111 and 114 of the Transfer of Proper Act (hereinafter referred to as 'T.P.Act') would apply. Both the orders are challenged in the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that despite having returned the finding that according to the bye-laws and the rules applicable, it was meant for the usage of public at large, yet it held that it was a private trust since its management was with a family. He has relied upon a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court rendered in the case of Kapoori Devi (Smt.) vs. District Judge, Kanpur (2007 (3) ARC 851). 4. Lastly it is urged that since it was a simple notice to quit under Section 106 of TP Act, there was no question of relief under Section 114 being extended to the tenant. 5. 4. Lastly it is urged that since it was a simple notice to quit under Section 106 of TP Act, there was no question of relief under Section 114 being extended to the tenant. 5. It is apparent from the record that the petitioner had acquired a piece of land from the Kanpur Improvement Trust in 1939 and built a Dharmashala over it for public use. It was thereafter registered as a Society under the Societies Registration Act in 1983. The trial court after examining the voluminous evidence on record including the bye-laws and rules of the Society, the Income tax exemption order, the Audit report etc. recorded a finding that the petitioner is a Trust for the people at large where travellers are allowed to stay and it is used for weddings etc. and is known as 'Ganesh Prasad Dalal Dharmashala'. However, considering the ratio rendered in the case of Radha Krishana Dev & another vs. the Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowment, Orissa ( AIR 1981 SC 798 ), it found that the control of the trust was within the family, therefore, it was only a private charitable institution. The ratio rendered in Radha Krishan Dev's case was on entirely different set of facts. In the present case, it is not denied that the trust is being managed by a Society and under the Scheme of Administration and bye-laws of the society, there is no bar for people at large to become members thereof. However, all these issues now have been set at rest as the petitioner has already been held to be a public charitable institution by this Court in the case of Kapoori Devi's case (supra). Thus, the finding of both the courts below on this issue are bound to be set aside. 6. So far as the applicability of Sections 111 and 114 of TP Act are concerned, the courts below have held that since the notice to quit had given only 30 days' time, it was not referable to a notice simplicitor under Section 106 and as it was referable to Section 111 thereof, the tenant was entitled to benefit of Section 114 of TP Act. The findings are perverse. 7. A copy of the notice which is annexed shows that it was a simplicitor notice terminating the tenancy and is referable to Section 106 of TP Act which is quoted below : "106. The findings are perverse. 7. A copy of the notice which is annexed shows that it was a simplicitor notice terminating the tenancy and is referable to Section 106 of TP 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 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. (4) Every notice under sub-section (1) must be in writing, signed by or on behalf of the period 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." 8. A perusal of the aforesaid provision shows that except for a lease of immovable property for purposes of agriculture or for manufacturing, all other leases would be deemed to be lease from month to month and terminable by 30 days' notice. There is nothing on record to show that the lease to the respondent tenant was either for agricultural or for manufacturing purposes and therefore, six months' notice was not required. 9. The benefit of Section 114 of TP Act would only be available to a tenant where it is proved that the lease has been determined by forfeiture as referable under Section 111. 9. The benefit of Section 114 of TP Act would only be available to a tenant where it is proved that the lease has been determined by forfeiture as referable under Section 111. A learned Single Judge of this Court by a detailed judgment, rendered in the case of B.R.Trading Company & another vs. Dharam Raj Sahu & others (2008 (3) ARC 148), after relying upon several judgments of this Court and of the Apex Court, has held that in determination of tenancy by forfeiture, a right is exercised while the tenancy is still subsisting and in a notice to quit, the tenancy is not subsisting and in such a case, there arises no question of relief against forfeiture. As already found, the notice is simplicitor and lease has not been determined by forfeiture. Thus, the finding to the contrary recorded by the trial court cannot be sustained. 10. For the reasons above, this petition succeeds and is allowed and both the orders impugned are hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the trial court for deciding the suit afresh keeping in mind the observations made hereinabove. The suit be decided expeditiously and in no case beyond a period of three months from the date of submission of a certified copy of this order. 11. In the circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.