JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 2/2/2017 passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Sriganganagar, whereby, the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 5/2/2016 passed by Sr. Civil Judge, Sriganganagar has been partly allowed. 2. The respondent plaintiff filed a suit for eviction against the appellant pertaining to the property situated at village Kalia. It was inter alia indicated that the suit property was let out vide registered lease deed dated 15/9/2000 for a period of five years with lease rent of Rs.1,700/- per month. The lease started w.e.f. 1/8/2000 and the period of lease came to an end on 31/7/2005. It was alleged that without consent and permission of the plaintiff, a big tower was erected at the premises. As the plaintiff did not want to continue with the tenancy, by notice dated 4/5/2007 the same was terminated w.e.f. 31/5/2007 by sending registered notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (‘the Act, 1882’). The said notice was not responded by the appellant and the possession was also not handed over, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled for getting back the possession of the suit property and mesne profit to the tune of Rs.10,000/- per month was sought. 3. Written statement was filed by the appellant with preliminary objection that there was an arbitration agreement between the parties and, therefore, the suit was not maintainable. It was alleged that there are provisions under the Rent Control Act, 2001 (‘the Act, 2001’) for eviction and determination of rent, however, a civil suit has been filed which is barred by law. It was also claimed that after the expiry of lease deed, the plaintiff gave consent for additional rent of Rs.450/- p.m. and the lease was extended. After 31/7/2005, the rent was received and, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to terminate the tenancy. Further submissions were made that additional rent of Rs.450/- sought by the plaintiff has been accepted on 1/9/2007. Validity of the notice dated 4/5/2007 was challenged and its receipt was denied. It was prayed that the suit be dismissed. 4. The plaintiff filed replication denying the contentions regarding acceptance of Rs.450/- as additional rent and for extending the lease. Further submissions were made that additional rent of Rs.450/- sought by the plaintiff has been accepted on 1/9/2007. Validity of the notice dated 4/5/2007 was challenged and its receipt was denied. It was prayed that the suit be dismissed. 4. The plaintiff filed replication denying the contentions regarding acceptance of Rs.450/- as additional rent and for extending the lease. It was indicated that proposal was given, however, as the same was not accepted within reasonable time, by notice dated 4/5/2007 the tenancy was terminated. 5. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed five issues. After hearing the parties, on 29/5/2012, the suit was decreed, against which appeal was filed, which appeal was allowed by judgment and decree dated 12/12/2013 and the matter was remanded back to the trial court after framing additional issue 4-A pertaining to preliminary objection raised by the appellant. The trial court on remand came to the conclusion that objection regarding maintainability of the suit raised by the appellant had no substance; the Act of 2001 had no application in view of the provisions of Section 3(x) of the Act, 2001. Rest of the issues pertaining to validity of the notice and termination of tenancy were decided in favour of the plaintiff and it was ordered that the plaintiff was entitled for possession of the suit premises and mesne profit @ Rs.2150/- w.e.f. 1/6/2007 were decreed and it was ordered that after expiry of three months, three times the amount of rent be paid. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants filed first appeal. 7. The first appellate court, after discussing all the issues as raised, came to the conclusion that the tenancy was validly terminated under the provisions of Section 106 of the Act and that though the trial court wrongly held that the suit was not maintainable on account of provisions of Section 3(x) of the Act, 2001, in view of the fact that the provisions of the Act of 2001 have not been extended to the Panchayat area, wherein, the suit premises are situated, the same had no application and as such the tenancy could be terminated by resorting to provisions of Section 106 of the Act of 1882. The finding pertaining to award of mesne profit at three times after passage of three months from the date of decree was set aside and it was directed that plaintiff would be entitled to mesne profit @ Rs.2150/- p.m. from after the date of termination of tenancy i.e. 1/6/2007. 8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that both the courts below committed error in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff. It was submitted that once after the lease period was over and the respondent landlord continued to receive the rent from the appellant, the tenancy could not have been terminated and, therefore, both the courts below fell in error in decreeing the suit. 9. Further submissions were made that the appellant had accepted the proposal given by the respondent for additional amount of Rs.450/- p.m. and, therefore, the tenancy could not have been terminated. It was submitted that the judgments passed by the both the courts below deserve to be quashed and set aside. 10. Learned counsel appearing on caveat supported the judgment impugned. It was submitted that the judgment impugned does not call for any interference inasmuch as the respondent has followed the provisions of Section 106 of the Act of 1882 and has validly terminated the tenancy. Both the courts below have concurrently found in favour of the respondent and as no substantial question of law is involved in the present case, no interference under Section 100 CPC is called for by this Court. 11. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 12. It is not in dispute that the registered lease deed for five years was for the period 1/8/2000 to 31/7/2005 and by efflux of time the same came to an end, however, the appellant tenant remained in possession and continued to pay the rent to the landlord. The said act of the tenant and landlord has put the appellant in the position as a tenant holding over. The provision of Section 116 of the Act of 1882 deals with the effect of holding over, which reads as under: “116. The said act of the tenant and landlord has put the appellant in the position as a tenant holding over. The provision of Section 116 of the Act of 1882 deals with the effect of holding over, which reads as under: “116. Effect of holding over – If a lessee or under lessee of property remains in possession thereof after the determination of the lease granted to the lessee, and the lessor or his legal representative accepts rent from the lessee or under-lessee, or otherwise assents to his continuing in possession, the lease is, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, renewed from year to year, or from month to month, according to the purpose for which the property is leased, as specified in Section 106.” 13. A perusal of the above provision indicates that after the termination of lease granted to the lessee if the lessee remains in possession and lessor accepts the rent from the lessee, the lease is renewed from year to year or month to month, according to the purpose for which the property is leased, as specified in Section 106 of the Act, 1882. 14. As the lease deed in the present case was not for agricultural or manufacturing purpose, the same was for month to month and consequently terminable on part of the lessor by 15 days notice in terms of Section 106 of the Act, 1882. Both the courts below have concurrently found that the notice was delivered and the same fulfills the requirement of Section 106 of the Act. Learned counsel for the appellant failed to indicate any perversity in the said finding of the two courts below. 15. So far as the submission pertaining to the fact that as the landlord had sought enhancement of rent and the same was accepted by the appellant on 1/9/2007 is concerned, it is an admitted fact that before the said acceptance on 1/9/2007, the tenancy already stood terminated by notice dated 4/5/2007 w.e.f. 31/5/2007 and, therefore, the acceptance on the part of appellant tenant of the proposal for enhancement is of no consequence. In view thereof, there is no substance in any of the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant. 16. In view thereof, there is no substance in any of the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant made submission that as a Telephone Exchange is working at the premises and tower has been established, the appellant may be granted some reasonable time to vacate the premises. 17. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the submission. It was submitted that the tenancy was terminated way back in the year 2007 and over 11 years have already passed and, therefore, the appellant is not entitled for grant of time. It was further submitted that in case any time is granted, the appellant be directed to pay mesne profit @ Rs.10,000/- p.m. It is not in dispute that presently an Exchange is working at the premises and a tower established by the appellant is also existing at the premises and the appellant would require sometime for vacating the premises and, therefore, in the interest of justice a reasonable time is required to be granted to the appellant for vacating the premises, however, for use and occupation of the premises the appellant has to make payment of entire arrears as decreed by the trial court/appellate court and pay higher mesne profit for the extended period. 18. Consequently, the second appeal has no substance and the same is, therefore, dismissed. However, the appellant is granted time till 31/8/2019 to vacate the suit premises. It would be required of the appellant to pay entire amount of arrears of rent/mesne profit as decreed by the courts below within a period of eight weeks from the date of this judgment. It would also be required of the appellant to pay mesne profit @ Rs.5,000/- per month for the period 1/8/2018 to 31/8/2019. The amount of arrears of rent/mesne profit and month to month mesne profit would be deposited in the Saving Bank Account of the respondent, particulars whereof would be supplied by learned counsel for the respondent to learned counsel for the appellants within a period of two weeks. The amount of mesne profit for the period 1/8/2018 to 31/8/2019 would be paid month to month by 15th of each succeeding month. The amount of mesne profit for the period 1/8/2018 to 31/8/2019 would be paid month to month by 15th of each succeeding month. In case the appellant defaults in making payment of arrears of rent within a period of eight weeks and makes two consecutive defaults in payment of month to month mesne profit, the respondent would be entitled to execute the decree forthwith. No order as to costs.