P.S. Kailasam, J.
1. The contention that is raised is that the notice is not in accordance with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Notice, Exhibit A-3, is certainly not in accordance with Section 106 in that it does not give fifteen days notice expiring with the end of the month of the tenancy. The trial Court, as well as the appellate Court, held that according to a decision of this Court, notice under Section 106 was not necessary. But the revision Court has held that as the tenant has denied the title of the landlord, no notice is necessary, relying on the decision of this Court in Sadagopa Alwar v. Elumalai Chetty (1970) 1 M.L.J. 16.
2. A lease of an immovable property is determined under Section 111(g) by forfeiture. The sub-section provides for three contingencies on the happening of which the lessor may re-enter, (1) when the lessee breaks an express condition which provides that on breach thereof, the lessor may re-enter, (2) when the lessee renounces his character as such by setting up title in a third person or by claiming title in himself and (3) when the lessee is adjudicated insolvent and the lease provides that the lessor may re-enter on the happenings of such an event. In all these three cases, the sub-Section provides that the lessor or his transferee should give notice in writing to the lessee of his intention to determine the lease. Though the notice need not be in accordance with Section 106, a notice in writing to the lessee of his intention to determine the lease on one of the three grounds mentioned in Section 111(g) is necessary. This was the view taken by Sadasivam, J., in Thangavelu v. Bahadur Sheriff (1970) 83 L.W. 124. This decision is in accordance with the express provision of Section 111(g). Agreeing with this view I allow this petition. The landlord is entitled to file a fresh application complying with the above requirements. There will be no order as to costs in this revision petition.