Judgment :- 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court in A.S.No.15 of 2002 dated 15.10.2003 in confirming the liability to pay the monthly rent with the modified quantum of rent ordered by the trial court in O.S.No.660 of 1999 dated 28.02.2001 in decreeing the suit as prayed for. 2. The appellants were the defendants and the respondent was the plaintiff before the trial court. 3. For convenience, the rank of parties before the trial court are maintained in this judgment. 4. The case of the plaintiff as stated in the amended plaint would be as follows:- The plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and the defendants are in occupation of the building in the ground floor having door No.6/45-5A from 20.01.1998 on monthly rent of Rs.12,450/- and the same is being used for storing election materials. There has been default in the payment of rent from 01.11.1998 and the electricity charges of Rs.1,056/-. The plaintiff issued notice to the defendants demanding the payment of arrears of rent and electricity charges. Though the defendants have received the same, there is no positive response from the defendants. The second defendant has sent a G.O., to the effect that the rent has been scaled down to Rs.10,000/-and that the building has been vacated on 03.06.1999, whereas the plaintiff has not been given possession of the same till now. The scaling down of the rent is without the consent of the plaintiff. Hence, this suit. 5. The objections raised by the first defendant in the written statement, which was adopted by the second defendant, would be as follows:- It is true that a sum of Rs.1,16,865/-was sanctioned by the Government for the rental arrears from 20.01.1998 to 31.10.1998 and the same was paid to the plaintiff on 03.12.1998. There is no agreement between the parties for the usage of electricity in the suit premises. The building was used as godown only and no electricity supply was given to that portion. No separate meter or sub-meter was installed in that portion, and the defendants are not liable to pay any electricity charges. The non-payment of rent is not due to any fault of the defendants. The plaintiff has not chosen to give the advance stamped receipt inspite of his being approached by the different subordinate staff of the defendants several times. No separate meter or sub-meter was installed in that portion, and the defendants are not liable to pay any electricity charges. The non-payment of rent is not due to any fault of the defendants. The plaintiff has not chosen to give the advance stamped receipt inspite of his being approached by the different subordinate staff of the defendants several times. It is false to state that the scaling down of the rent is unilateral. A proposal for sanction of Rs.10,000/-is voluntarily accepted by the plaintiff himself in his letter dated 02.11.1998 and the same is recommended to the Government for the sanction of rent. It is false to state that the plaintiff has not taken possession of the building till now. The plaintiff has also been occupying some of the rooms in the upstairs of the suit property for his business purpose and he used to come there periodically. The premises used by the defendants has been vacated on 03.06.1999 under proper information to the plaintiff and most of the election materials have been removed by the Tahsildar, Namakkal in the presence of the plaintiff himself. Again on 04.06.1999, entire materials have been removed and since the plaintiff was not present on that day, the premises was handed over to the watchman of the building left open. On 04.06.1999 itself, the defendants passed the vacation message to the plaintiff through registered letter. Thus, the plaintiff was fully aware of the vacation of the building and he has taken possession of the same from this defendant on 04.06.1999 itself. The suit is liable to be dismissed as the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any amount from this defendant. 6. On the above pleadings, the trial court framed necessary issues and entered trial. After appraising the evidence, the trial court decreed the suit as prayed for with costs against the defendants. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the defendants preferred an appeal in A.S.No.15 of 2002 challenging the judgment and decree of the trial court. After appraising the evidence, the trial court decreed the suit as prayed for with costs against the defendants. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the defendants preferred an appeal in A.S.No.15 of 2002 challenging the judgment and decree of the trial court. After hearing the appeal, the first appellate court partly allowed the appeal by modifying the judgment and decree of the trial court in respect of the quantum of monthly rent payable by the defendants from 01.11.1998 to 30.08.1999 at Rs.10,000/- per month and also maintained interest rate at 12% p.a. The aggrieved defendants have come forward with this Second Appeal challenging the said modified judgment and decree of the first appellate court. 7. On admission of the Second Appeal, this Court had formulated the following questions of law for being considered in this Appeal:- 1) Whether the courts below had erred in not appreciating the provision of Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, wherein a lease is deemed to have terminated when one party gives notice in writing to the party, who is intended to be bound by it. 2) Whether the courts below had erred in not appreciating the Section 111(h) of the Transfer of Property Act, which clearly stipulates that a lease of immovable property determines on expiration of notice to quit or of the intention to quit. 3) Whether the courts below had erred in not appreciating that in the instant case notice vide Ex.A2 had been served on the plaintiff/respondent with due acknowledgement. 4) Whether the courts below had erred in coming to a finding that the appellants/defendants continued to be in possession of the suit schedule property when the plaintiff himself had not sought for the relief of recovery of possession. 5) Whether the courts below had erred in granting a decree for payment of future rent when the same had not been sought for. 6) Whether the lower Appellate Court having come to a finding that the plaintiff/respondent being aware of the fact that the suit schedule premises had been vacated and had not sought for the relief of recovery of possession, erred in decreeing the suit so far as payment of rent from 04.06.1999 till the date of handing over of possession. 6) Whether the lower Appellate Court having come to a finding that the plaintiff/respondent being aware of the fact that the suit schedule premises had been vacated and had not sought for the relief of recovery of possession, erred in decreeing the suit so far as payment of rent from 04.06.1999 till the date of handing over of possession. 7) Whether both the courts below erred in granting the decree for rent till the date of handing over of possession when the plaintiff himself though instituted the suit on 16.09.1999 confined the prayer to rent from 01.11.1998 to 30.06.1999. 8. Heard Mr. T.Jayaramaraj, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants and Mr. K.V.Sundararajan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants/defendants would submit in his argument that the courts below have not appreciated the evidence properly. He would further submit that the property was obtained on lease for keeping or storing the election materials safely at the demised premises and the election materials were removed on 03.06.1999 and 04.06.1999 and the possession of the property had been handed over to the plaintiff/respondent. He would also submit that the said evidence has not been accepted, but the courts below have ordered payment of rent even for the period after the vacating of the premises. He would further submit that the lower court erred in decreeing the suit, when there was no recovery of possession sought for by the plaintiff, since the possession was handed over already on 04.06.1999. He would further submit that the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act have not been interpreted properly by the courts below. He would also submit that under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, a notice should have been served either to the party himself or one of his family members or servants or at least a resident therein. He would also submit that the keys of the property were admittedly handed over to the watchman of the building on 04.06.1999 after vacating the premises. He would further submit that the defendants should not be found in possession of the suit property after handing over of possession on 04.06.1999. He would, therefore, request the Court to allow the appeal and thereby, dismiss the suit filed by the plaintiff after interfering and setting aside the judgments of the courts below. 10. He would further submit that the defendants should not be found in possession of the suit property after handing over of possession on 04.06.1999. He would, therefore, request the Court to allow the appeal and thereby, dismiss the suit filed by the plaintiff after interfering and setting aside the judgments of the courts below. 10. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would submit in his argument that the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants that the defendants have vacated the premises on 04.06.1999 was not correct and actually possession was handed over to the plaintiff only on 28.03.2005, during the pendency of the Second Appeal. He would further submit that the defendants have categorically admitted the possession of the suit property as tenants and therefore, they are liable to pay the rent payable for the demised premises till they vacated the suit property. He would also submit that the original rent was fixed at Rs.12,450/-and the rents payable from 20.01.1998 till 31.10.1998 were paid by the defendants and they were liable to pay the rent payable from 01.11.1998 at Rs.12,450/-per month till the date of filing the suit. He would also submit that even though the plaintiff had sought for payment of rent payable till 30.09.1999, the plaint was subsequently amended to the knowledge of the defendants seeking a prayer for passing a decree in respect of the future rent payable to the said premises till the possession is handed over to the plaintiff. He would also submit that the questions of law framed in item-5 would not arise for consideration. He would further submit that the rent was fixed at Rs.12,450/-and it was agreed by the defendants and an order has been passed by the election officer to that effect from 20.01.1998 to 31.10.1998. He would also submit that the premises were not vacated even after 31.10.1998 and therefore, the defendants were liable to pay rent at the same rate as agreed by them since the plaintiff was not given possession of the said premises. He would also submit that the defendants did not vacate the premises and handed over possession of the property either on 03.06.1999 or on 04.06.1999. He would also submit that the defendants did not vacate the premises and handed over possession of the property either on 03.06.1999 or on 04.06.1999. He would also submit that the lease ought to have been surrendered at the time of handing over of possession and there should be some acknowledgement obtained from the plaintiff while the alleged possession has been handed over to the plaintiff. 11. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would also submit that the first appellate court had discussed the evidence and had come to the conclusion that the defendants were liable to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-per month on the subsequent oral understanding reached in between the parties and the defendants are, therefore, liable to pay the said rent payable to the demised premises till they vacated the suit property. He would further submit in his argument that the defendants, who have stated that they have vacated the premises on 03.06.1999 and 04.06.1999, have failed to prove the said plea and the burden is heavily on the defendants to prove the same. The first appellate court had rightly found that the defendants failed to prove the said defence and the decree passed by the first appellate court after modifying the judgment and decree passed by the trial court is quiet sound and in accordance with the evidence. He would therefore, submit that the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court need not be disturbed as there was no grave error much less any error committed by the first appellate court. He would therefore, request the Court to dismiss the appeal. 12. I have given anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced on either side. 13. The suit has been originally filed by the plaintiff in simplicitor for recovery of arrears of rent for the demised premises. The said claim made by the plaintiff was subsequently amended for the future rents also to be paid till the defendants vacate the premises. Since the plaint was validly amended and issues were framed and were considered by the courts below, the 5th question of law framed in this appeal is not at all necessary. 14. The said claim made by the plaintiff was subsequently amended for the future rents also to be paid till the defendants vacate the premises. Since the plaint was validly amended and issues were framed and were considered by the courts below, the 5th question of law framed in this appeal is not at all necessary. 14. The trial court has come to a conclusion that the defendants did not vacate the premises as told by them on 03.06.1999 and 04.06.1999 and fixed the liability of the defendants to pay the rents payable to the demised premises at Rs.12,450/- per month till the date of vacating the premises with interest at 12% per annum. However, the said quantum of rent payable to the premises was modified from Rs.12,450/- to Rs.10,000/-per month. The said finding was reached by the first appellate court by modifying the order passed by the trial court in view of the admission made by the plaintiff in his evidence that the plaintiff as well as the defendants have agreed orally to contain the monthly rent at Rs.10,000/- for the demised premises. On a careful scrutiny of the evidence of PW.1, I could see that the said finding reached by the first appellate court is quite alright. Moreover, the plaintiff has not filed any cross appeal to raise the quantum of rent from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.12,450/-per month. Therefore, the said finding of the first appellate court is not liable to be challenged. 15. Regarding the question of vacating the premises, the defendants had pleaded that the demised premises was vacated on 03.06.1999 and 04.06.1999. No doubt, the vacating of premises may be true by removing the ballot boxes stored therein. The averment made that the keys were handed over to the watchman of the premises, is not enough to effect a lawful handing over of the possession to the landlord. No doubt, various orders have been passed by the officers of the defendants to enter into an agreement for keeping the ballot boxes for the period till 31.10.1998. While handing over possession, they ought to have very diligent in obtaining the acknowledgement of the landlord after the payment of arrears of rent. It was not done by the defendants. Therefore, the finding of the courts below that the defendants did not prove that they have vacated the premises on 03.06.1999 and 04.06.1999 as pleaded in their written statement. While handing over possession, they ought to have very diligent in obtaining the acknowledgement of the landlord after the payment of arrears of rent. It was not done by the defendants. Therefore, the finding of the courts below that the defendants did not prove that they have vacated the premises on 03.06.1999 and 04.06.1999 as pleaded in their written statement. In the absence of such proof, no doubt, the presumption would be that the possession of the defendants regarding the demised premises would continue till it is proved to have been vacated. Therefore, the courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that the defendants are liable to pay the agreed rent payable to the demised premises, for the extended period as a tenant either by 'holding over' or as 'tenants by sufferance'. 16. A notice in Ex.A2 was sent by the plaintiff to the defendants calling the defendants to pay the arrears of rent payable to the demised premises. But it was replied by the defendants through Ex.A4 that the premises was vacated. The plea that the keys were handed over to the watchman of the premises was not referred to in the said reply Ex.A4. However, it has been denied by the plaintiff in a rejoinder Ex.A5 that no key has been either deposited with the plaintiff nor with his watchman. This evidence would go to show that the plaintiff did not send any notice of termination to the defendants and seeking for any damages for use and occupation of the premises, so as to attract the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. No doubt, the defendants' case was that they intended to vacate the premises on 03.06.1999 and 04.06.1999, but such vacating of premises was not effectively proved by the defendants that they were not in possession of the demised premises after the said dates. The mere information given by the defendants through the reply notice in Ex.A4 would not be sufficient, since the said information was disclosed only as a reply to the notice of demand for payment of arrears of rent from the side of the plaintiff, when the defendants are at the burden of proving the vacating of premises by 03.06.1999 and 04.06.1999. It was not proved in order to disallow the claim of the plaintiff on the modified rent of Rs.10,000/-. It was not proved in order to disallow the claim of the plaintiff on the modified rent of Rs.10,000/-. It is now submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent / plaintiff before the Court that the defendants have actually vacated and handed over the keys only on 28.03.2005 during the pendency of the appeal. When there is a plea that the defendants have vacated the premises on 03.06.1999 and 04.06.1999, how there would be a requirement for issuing a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Moreover, the lease period was admittedly over by 31.10.1998. In such circumstances, the lease would be over by efflux of time. On this circumstance also, the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is not necessary. It has already been ordered by the courts below that the rents payable to the premises at Rs.10,000/-to whatever period the defendants are in possession of the suit property to be ascertained and a decree will be passed for the future rents. The judgment of the first appellate court in denying the interest for the future rent is also justifiable. Therefore, the questions of law framed are not decided in favour of the appellants/defendants. 17. It is brought to the notice of this Court that this Court had passed an order on 28.03.2005 in CMP.No.17556 of 2004, a stay application, directing the defendants to deposit a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- to the credit of the suit in O.S.No.660 of 1999 on the file of the Sub Court, Namakkal and on such condition complied with, the stay of the decree would be granted. It is further stated that the plaintiff was also directed to take possession of the suit property. It has been submitted that as per the direction of this Court dated 28.03.2005, the plaintiff took possession of the suit property and the defendants' liability to pay the rent ceased from the said date. Considering the orders passed by this Court and the submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the plaintiff had taken possession of the suit property in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court in CMP.No.17556 of 2004 dated 28.03.2005, the future rent payable by the defendants to be calculated till such date and appropriate Court Fees to be paid for the said amount. As rightly decided by the first appellate court, there would be no interest for the future rent accrued to the demised premises. The amount, if any, deposited to the credit of the suit in O.S.No.660 of 1999 on the file of the Sub Court, Namakkal, shall be adjusted towards the decree amount and if any amount still payable towards decree amount, the plaintiff is entitled to proceed in accordance with law. 18. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Second Appeal preferred by the defendants against the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court is dismissed. The judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court is confirmed subject to the above observation. No costs.