Judgment :- Inveighing the order dated 20.9.2005 passed in Eje. Suit. No. 41 of 1997 by the II Judge, Small Causes Judge, Chennai, this civil revision petition is focused. 2. Broadly but briefly, narratively but precisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus: (i) The first respondent herein, as plaintiff, has filed the suit for ejectment. Whereupon the revision petitioner/D1 entered appearance and filed the written statement and D2 and D3 remained ex-parte. (ii) During trial on the plaintiffs side one Tamilvendan Ezhil was examined as P.W.1 and Exs. P1 to P3 were marked. On the defendants side, one Jagadeesan was examined as D.W.1 and Exs. D1 to D14 were marked. (iii) Ultimately, the trial Court ordered eviction. 3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of eviction, this revision has been filed on various grounds, the gist and kernal of them would run thus: The lower Court simply placed reliance on the notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and ordered eviction and did not probe into the truthfulness or otherwise of the averments/allegations made in the plaint. 4. Reiterating the grounds as found set out in the revision, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/D1 would develop his argument that the lower Court was bound to look into all the averments/allegations, including the defence of the defendants, but without considering all those facts, simply the trial Court decreed the suit based on the notice issued under Section 106 T.P. Act by the plaintiff/landlord as against the defendants. As such, the learned counsel prays for setting aside the judgment and decree of the lower Court. 5. Whereas, the learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff, by way of torpedoing and pulverising the arguments as put forth on the side of the revision petitioner, would develop his argument, the pith and marrow of them would run thus: In a matter of this nature, where the Rent Control Act is not applicable, the Court is bound to look into the fact as to whether proper notice under Section 106 of the T.P. Act has been issued or not and in this case the Court, in the judgment clearly held that the said notice issued under Section 106 of T.P. Act (Ex. P1) was not even challenged by the revision petitioner/D1. 6. P1) was not even challenged by the revision petitioner/D1. 6. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any illegality or infirmity in the order of the lower Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction.? 7. It is a trite proposition of law that in a case where the tenancy is from month to month the landlord is entitled to issue notice under Section 106 of the T.P. Act terminating the tenancy with the end of the tenancy month by stipulating the time as contemplated under Section 106 of the Act. Once such proper notice is found issued, the Court is bound to order eviction. 8. No doubt, initially for the purpose of seeking eviction the plaintiff might have set out certain averments and the defendant cannot call upon the plaintiff to prove in stricto sensu all the averments. The lower Court did not misdirect itself in any manner, but properly adhered to the settled proposition of law and considered the correctness of the notice issued under Section 106 of the T.P. Act and ordered eviction. Even now nothing has been canvassed before me that the said notice issued under Section 106 of the T.P. Act is invalid or erroneous. In such a case, I could see no merit in this revision. 9. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.