Duration of certain leases in absence of written contract or local usage
Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 deals with duration of certain leases in absence of written contract or local usage. In the absence of a contract or local law or usage to the contrary, a lease of immovable property for agricultural or manufacturing purposes shall be deemed to be a lease from year to year, terminable, on the part of either lessor or lessee, by six months' notice; The Act came into force on 01 Jul 1882.
1[106. Duration of certain leases in absence of written contract or local usage.-- (1) In the absence of a contract or local law or usage to the contrary, a lease of immovable property for agricultural or manufacturing purposes shall be deemed to be a lease from year to year, terminable, on the part of either lessor or lessee, by six months' notice; and a lease of immovable property for any other purpose shall be deemed to be a lease from month to month, terminable, on the part of either lessor or lessee, by fifteen days' notice.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the period mentioned in sub-section (1) shall commence from the date of receipt of notice.
(3) A notice under sub-section (1) shall not be deemed to be invalid merely because the period mentioned therein falls short of the period specified under that sub-section, where a suit or proceeding is filed after the expiry of the period mentioned in that sub-section.
(4) Every notice under sub-section (1) must be in writing, signed by or on behalf of the person giving it, and either be sent by post to the party who is intended to be bound by it or be tendered or delivered personally to such party, or to one of his family or servants at his residence, or (if such tender or delivery is not practicable) affixed to a conspicuous part of the property.]
Section 106, The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Act 4 of 1882).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 14
- Arunachal Pradesh Tenancy Act s. 21
- Delhi Rent Control Act s. 8 Notice of increase of rent
- Delhi Rent Control Act s. 14 Protection of tenant against eviction
- Gujarat Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act s. 12
- Jammu and Kashmir Tenancy Act s. 21 Eviction and recovery of possession of premises by Landlord
- Karnataka Rent Act s. 10 Notice of revision of rent
- Karnataka Rent Act s. 27 Protection of tenants against eviction
- Maharashtra Rent Control Act s. 15 No ejectment ordinarily to be made if tenant pays or is ready and willing to pay standard rent and permitted increases
- Odisha House Rent Control Act s. 7
- PUNJAB RENT ACT, 1995 (punjab Act No. 13 of 2012) s. 10
- PUNJAB RENT ACT, 1995 (punjab Act No. 13 of 2012) s. 20
- Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act s. 21
and 2 more
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Samir Mukherjee vs Davinder K. Bajaj
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A lease of immovable property for agricultural or manufacturing purposes, governed by Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, will be deemed to be a year-to-year lease terminable by 6 months notice only if it constitutes a valid lease under Section 107. Section 107 mandates that any lease from year to year or for any term exceeding one year must be created by a registered instrument. In the absence of a registered instrument, no valid year-to-year lease can be created, and therefore an oral lease for manufacturing purposes remains a month-to-month tenancy terminable by 15 days notice. The rule of construction in Section 106 applies only to valid leases; its application presupposes the existence of a valid lease as required by Section 107.
On this section: Section 106 lays down that in the absence of a contract to the contrary, a lease for agricultural or manufacturing purposes is deemed to be from year to year, terminable by 6 months notice. The Court held this is merely a rule of construction, not a substantive right, and applies only when there is a valid lease in existence.
-
Sevoke Properties Pvt. LTD vs West Bengal State Eletrictiy Distribution Company Limited
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an unregistered lease agreement for a term exceeding one year is expressly admitted by the tenant in its written statement to have been for a specific term that has expired, the lease determines by efflux of time under Section 111(a) of the Transfer of Property Act without requiring a formal notice under Section 106. The tenant's status upon expiration of the admitted term becomes that of tenant at sufferance, and the filing of an eviction suit itself constitutes sufficient notice to quit. Therefore, no separate notice under Section 106 is mandatory for maintaining an eviction suit in such circumstances.
On this section: Provides for termination of tenancy by notice. Court held that when lease determines by efflux of time based on tenant's admission, no Section 106 notice is required. However, filing eviction suit itself constitutes notice to quit.
-
Payal Vision LTD vs Radhika Choudhary
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In a suit for recovery of possession from a tenant whose tenancy is not protected under the Rent Control Act, a decree for possession can be granted under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the basis of admissions if: (1) The jural relationship of landlord and tenant is clearly admitted, which admission can be inferred from the defendant's acknowledgment of the execution of a lease deed and payment of agreed rent, regardless of the nature of use (residential or commercial) or whether the lease was registered; (2) The termination of tenancy is admitted or proven, either by lapse of time or by service of a valid notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act; and (3) A tenant is estopped under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act from denying the landlord's title even when the challenge is based on documents anterior to the commencement of the tenancy, provided the tenant has acknowledged the landlord's title by entering into the tenancy agreement.
On this section: Section 106 provides the mechanism for termination of month-to-month tenancy by notice. The Court examined the requirements for valid notice under this section and determined that a notice dated 17th March 2003 served on the tenant sufficiently conveyed the landlord's intention to terminate the tenancy. The Court found the notice to be in compliance with Section 106 requirements, though the tenant disputed its validity.
-
Kamalchand Savan Sukha (since Deceased) through Lrs vs Sohanlal Jain
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a suit for eviction is filed by a landlord before rent control legislation becomes applicable to an area, and a decree for possession is passed by the civil court after the legislation becomes applicable, the decree remains valid and executable. The law applicable on the date of institution of the suit continues to govern the suit and its decree. The rent control legislation does not have retrospective effect and does not bar the execution of decrees passed in suits validly instituted before its applicability, unless the legislation explicitly contains such a bar. The rights of the parties crystallize on the date of filing of the suit, and the jurisdiction of the civil court to decide such suit is not ousted by the subsequent applicability of rent control legislation.
On this section: Cited for the procedure of terminating tenancy by notice. The landlord served notice under this section before filing the eviction suit.
-
Mrityunjoy Sett(d) by Lrs vs Jadunath Basak (d) by Lrs
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An admission made by a party in a court of law, originating from the person against whom it is sought to be produced, constitutes the best possible and most reliable form of evidence and shall hold good unless withdrawn or clarified by the admitting party. Such an admission shall carry greater evidentiary weight than uncorroborated documentary evidence like rent receipts, and shall be admissible and usable in all subsequent legal proceedings. Further, where a statutory notice prescribes a one month period expiring with a month of the tenancy, full and complete compliance is achieved when one month's clear time is provided, regardless of whether the underlying tenancy record contains documentary evidence suggesting a different calendar system, unless such evidence is substantiated by credible witness testimony from the document's creator. A High Court acting under Section 100 of the CPC cannot set aside the judgment and decree of a lower appellate court when the High Court itself acknowledges that no substantial question of law is involved in the appeal, as such interference would be contrary to settled principles of appellate jurisdiction.
On this section: The eviction notice was stated to be given under this section as well, which governs termination of tenancy by notice. The court noted the notice expressly mentioned it was given under both the Act and this section.
-
Shanti Prasad Devi vs Shankar Mahto
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a lease deed contains specific clauses prescribing the mode and conditions of renewal (constituting 'agreement to the contrary' within Section 116 of Transfer of Property Act), mere acceptance of rent by the lessor after expiry of the original lease period does not result in deemed renewal of the lease or 'holding over' by the lessee. The option of renewal must be exercised strictly in accordance with the terms prescribed in the lease deed, including exercise before expiry of the original lease period. Failure to comply with these prescribed conditions precludes both implied renewal through holding over and specific performance of the renewal agreement.
On this section: Termination of lease by notice - Court held that statutory notice under Section 106 is not required when lease has expired and there is no deemed renewal, as the lease has already terminated by efflux of time.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… in the eye of law? I have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment of the learned trial court as well as the first appellate court. The learned trial court as well as the first appellate court have considered the legality of the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and there is a concurrent finding of both the courts below that the notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer property Act was as per law. So far as the waiver is concerned, it is settled position of law that after termination of tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of …
Questions about Section 106
What have the courts held on Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act?
Samir Mukherjee vs Davinder K. Bajaj (18 Apr 2001) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Section 106 lays down that in the absence of a contract to the contrary, a lease for agricultural or manufacturing purposes is deemed to be from year to year, terminable by 6 months notice. The Court held this is merely a rule of construction, not a substantive right, and applies only when there is a valid lease in existence. Another 5 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2001 to 2022.
How do I find court cases under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: TP Act 106, section 106 TP Act, section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. People searching for it also type 106 tpa notice format. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 6 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Samir Mukherjee vs Davinder K. Bajaj (18 Apr 2001).
What should I read with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, and has it changed?
14 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it.
When did Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act come into force?
Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, cited as TP Act 106, came into force on 01 Jul 1882, having been enacted on 17 Feb 1882. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 55. Rights and liabilities of buyer and seller1096 words
- 108. Rights and liabilities of lessor and lessee1030 words
- 69A. Appointment of receiver892 words
- 3. Interpretation-clause658 words
- 35. Election when necessary614 words
- 58. Mortgage , mortgagor , mortgagee , mortgage-money and mortgage- deed defined554 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.