The Supreme Court in the case K.M. Manjunath Vs Erappa. G observed and reiterated that after the expiry of the period of lease, the mere acceptance of the rent by the landlord would not amount to waiver of the termination of lease. Facts of the Case: An eviction suit was filed by the landlord. The contentions were taken by the tenant stating that there was no valid termination of tenancy as per Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, while accepting this termination, the suit was dismissed by Trail Court. The plaintiff-landlord filled a revision petition under Section 18 of the Karnataka Small Cause Courts Act, the same was allowed. In view of Section 111(a) of the TP Act, the Karnataka High Court held that the lease would be determined by the efflux of time and under such circumstances notice of termination under Section 106 of the TP Act was not required. The court referred the judgement in the case Shanti Prasad Devi & Anr. Vs. Shankar Mahto & Ors, wherein the the High Court held that mere acceptance of the landlord after the expiry of the period of lease would not amount to waiver of the termination of lease. However, the defendant approached the Apex Court by filing a Special Leave Petition. The Apex Court bench comprising of Justice CT Ravikumar and the Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia observed while referring to the to evidence on record, the bench noted that the parties have agreed and decided to go by the provisions of the TP Act and further it was stated that the lease could be taken as lease for a period of eleven months. The bench observed that in the view of the evidence thus obtained and taking into account the decision in Shanti Prasad Devi’s case (supra) the High Court held that mere acceptance of the rent after the expiry of the period of lease by the landlord would not amount to waiver of the termination of lease. Further, relying on the division Bench decision of the High Court in the case M.C. Mohammed Vs. Smt. Gowramma and while rendering upon the decision of the case Pooran Chand Vs. Motilal & Ors, wherein it was held that on the expiry of the term fixed under the deed the tenant would not be entitled to statutory notice under Section 106 of the TP Act. The court noted that on determination of the lease by efflux of time no further termination of the tenancy by issuing a statutory notice to bring termination of a lease already terminated is necessary. The bench stated, while dismissing the plea that the judgment and decree of the Civil Court was not ‘according to law,’ and therefore the High Court was certainly within its rights and powers to set aside the decree in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction
