Transfer of Property Act, 1882 · Chapter V: Of Leases of Immoveable Property
Section 106: Duration of certain leases in absence of written contract or local usage
In plain words
Unless a contract, local law or usage says otherwise, a lease for agricultural or manufacturing purposes is year to year and can be ended by six months' notice, and a lease for any other purpose is month to month and can be ended by fifteen days' notice.
- The notice period runs from the date the notice is received.
- A notice is not invalid just because it gives a shorter period, if the suit is filed after the proper period has passed.
- The notice must be in writing, signed, and sent by post, delivered personally or to a family member or servant, or fixed on the property if delivery is not practicable.
A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.
Read the in-depth explanation, with key Supreme Court rulings ↓
Official text
(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.]
Source: India Code (indiacode.gov.in), the consolidated text published by the Legislative Department, Government of India. Text as updated on India Code on 15 October 2026. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Understanding this section
Section 106 fixes the default duration and notice period of leases. Unless a contract, local law or usage says otherwise, a lease for agricultural or manufacturing purposes runs from year to year and ends on six months' notice; any other lease runs from month to month and ends on fifteen days' notice.
The 2002 amendment
Earlier, notices were often struck down for small defects, such as not ending with the last day of a month of the tenancy. The amendment made the period run from the date of receipt, and said a notice is not invalid just because the period stated falls short, as long as the suit is filed after the period expires. The notice must be in writing, signed, and sent by post or delivered as the section says.
Relation to rent control laws
Where a State rent control law governs eviction, the tenant can be evicted only on the grounds in that law. A notice under section 106 is then not required as a precondition, because the right to evict comes from the rent law. Under the general law, the Court has also said that filing an eviction suit can itself serve as a notice to quit.
Key Supreme Court rulings
V. Dhanapal Chettiar v. Yesodai Ammal 1979 INSC 156
A seven judge bench held that where a State rent control Act applies, a notice under section 106 terminating the tenancy is not necessary before seeking eviction under that Act.
Nopany Investments (P) Ltd. v. Santokh Singh (HUF) 2007 INSC 1255
Filing an eviction suit under the general law itself operates as a notice to quit, so no separate notice under section 106 was needed.
Common mistakes
- Rejecting a notice only because it gives a slightly shorter period. After 2002 that is not fatal if the suit is filed after the period.
- Insisting on a section 106 notice in an eviction under a rent control Act.
Read with: Section 105 Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 111 Transfer of Property Act, 1882
Prepared with AI assistance as a study aid. Every ruling listed was checked against the Supreme Court's own judgments on this site, and quoted words appear in those judgments; linked names open the full judgment. Read the judgments themselves before relying on them. Not legal advice.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 106
-
Dogiparthi Venkata Satish and Anr. v. Pilla Durga Prasad & Ors.
Whether Order XXX Rule 10 CPC in any manner debar a suit filed against the proprietor.
-
PNB Housing Finance Limited v. Sh. Manoj Saha & Anr.
Whether the High Court erred in directing the appellant to hand back the possession of the secured asset to the 1 st respondent; whether the 1st Respondent failed to establish pre-existing tenancy in his favour.
- Om Prakash v. Joginder Solanki and Ors
- Mohd. Irfan v. Hasan Mian Sinc Deceased Through His Legal Heirs & Anr
-
Naeem Bano Alias Gaindo v. Mohammad Rahees & Anr.
Inconsistency between the U.P. State amendment and the subsequent Parliamentary amendment to Section 106, Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Whether in view of the Parliament amending a provision subsequent to a State…
- Mohd Sajid v. Saleem Ahmad and Ors
- Kartar Singh Kochhar v. Icici Bank Ltd
-
Meera Devi (D) Thr. Lr. v. Dinesh Chandra Joshi (D) Thr. Lrs.
When the case falls in the category where the respondent-tenant has failed to comply with the order passed by the Supreme Court directing payment of rent.
- Anil Kalra & Anr v. Sheikh Mohd Iqbal
- Vijay Singh v. Smt. Jyoti Yadav
- M/S Greenways Through Its Partner v. Y.N. Gupta (Deceased) Through Its Lrs & Ors
- Mukesh Marwaha & Anr v. Rajiv Bhakri & Ors
- Manisha Kasana v. Union Bank of India & Anr
- Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Rajinder Singh Joon & Ors
- Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Rajinder Singh Joon & Ors
- Darshan Kaur v. Union of India & Anr
- Metenuo Kechu Also Known As Preeti v. Divisht Kaushik & Anr
-
Baitulla Ismail Shaikh and Anr. v. Khatija Ismail Panhalkar and Ors.
The appellants-landlords purchased the subject-premises in the year 1992 from its erstwhile owner. Both the tenants were inducted by the erstwhile owner of the building in question. On 23.01.2002, a demolition notice…
- Nawabuddin v. Shaffiulla@Raja
- Ramesh Kumar Challiya v. Laxmi
-
Mohideen Abdul Khadar (Dead)Through Lrs. v. Rahmath Beevi (D) Thr. Her Lrs. and Ors.
Dispute inter alia over retention of possession and tenancy right of predecessor of the petitioners in respect of second scheduled property (measurement of which was disputed in the s uit filed by the predecessor of the…
- Saleem Ahmad v. Smt.Kaushalya Devi(Deceased)Thr.Lr Shri Sudershan Kumar Joshi & Anr
-
M/S Paul Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Amit
To what extent the Court can take cognizance of a clause, relating to purpose for which a lease is granted, contained in an unregistered deed of lease for immovable property stipulating its duration for a period of five…
- Sh. Shokeen Khan v. Sh. Jai Singh
- H.S. Bajaj & Anr v. Satish Chopra
- M/S Economics Transport Organisation Ltd v. M/S Mohan Investments and Properties Pvt Ltd & Anr
- M/S Dentedge Healthcare Pvt. Ltd & Anr v. Shri V.C. Jain
- Coir Board v. Usha Malik
- Poonam Kakkar v. Vaishali & Anr
- M/s N. N. GLOBAL MERCANTILE PRIVATE LIMITED v. M/s
- M/S Divine Messengers v. Dr Prerna Diwan
- Brompton Lifestyle Brands Pvt Ltd v. Riveria Commercial Developers Ltd
- Parul Nahar v. Pooja Bansal and Anr
- Kanika Mittal v. Kavita Sardana & Anr
- Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Sudera Realty Private Limited
- Eih Limited v. Nadiavirji
- Asha Rani Gupta v. Sri Vineet Kumar
- Ptc India Financial Services Limited v. Venkateswarlu Kari and Another
- Shankarlal Nadani v. Sohanlal Jain
- Subhash Chander & Ors. v. M/S Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.(Bpcl) & Anr.
- Padam Nabh & Sons v. Yash Pal
- Abdul Khuddus v. H.M. Chandiramani (Dead) Thr Lrs. & Ors.
- Manish Kumar v. Union of India and Another
- Siri Chand (Deceased) Thr. Lrs. v. Surinder Singh
- Nand Ram (D) Through Lrs. & Ors. v. Jagdish Prasad (D) Through Lrs.
- Vinod Kumar v. Ashok Kumar Gandhi
- Dr Rs Grewal & Ors. v. Chander Parkash Soni & Anr.
- Apollo Zipper India Limited v. W. Newman and Co. Ltd.
- The Director, Prasar Bharati v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvanthapuram
- Prem Prakash v. Santosh Kumar Jain & Sons (Huf) and Another
- Public Trust Shri Geeta Satsang Bhawan v. Nand Lal & Ors.
- Shyam Lal v. Deepa Dass Chela Ram Chela Garib Dass
- Vishal N. Kalsaria v. Bank of India & Ors.
- Samar Pal Singh v. Chitranjan Singh
- Tata Steel Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand & Others
- S. M. Asif v. Vi Render Kumar Bajaj
- Ambikapathi Ammal & Anr. v. Sri Kandaswamy Koil by Its Executive Officer Thiruporur
- M/S Shaha Ratansi Khimji & Sons v. Proposed Kumbhar Sons Hotel P. Ltd. & Ors.
- Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd. (Formerly Known As Shree Ram Mills Ltd. v. The Court Receiver, High Court of Bombay
- Sheela Jawarlal Nagori & Anr. v. Kantilal Nathmal Baldota & Ors.
- M/S Band Box Private Limited v. Estate Officer, Punjab & Sind Bank and Anr.
- State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Bal Kishan Mathur (D) Through Lrs. & Ors.
- Ram Bharosey Lal Gupta(D) by Lrs. & Ors. v. M/S Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. & Anr.
- Board of Trustees of Port of Kandla v. Hargovind Jasraj & Anr.
- Purushottam Das Bangur & Ors. v. Dayanand Gupta
- M/S Payal Vision Ltd. v. Radhika Choudhary
- Ramdas Bansal (D) v. Kharag Singh Baid & Ors.
- M/S. Sms Tea Estates Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S. Chandmari Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd.
- Mritunjoy Sett (D) by Lrs. v. Jadunath Basak (D) by Lrs
- Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai v. M/S Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
- Pradeep Oil Corporation v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr.
- Samittri Devi and Anr. v. Sampuran Singh and Anr.
- Arun Lal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
- Shibani Basu v. Sandip Ray
- Nirmjal Jeet Singh Hoon v. Irtiza Hussain and Ors.
- Md. Nooman & Ors. v. Md. Jabed Alam & Ors.
- Pallawi Resources Ltd. v. Protos Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd.
- Biswanath Agarwalla v. Sabitri Bera & Ors.
- Sarla Goel & Ors. v. Kishan Chand
- Dwarika Nath Acooli v. Dulal Chandra Bayen and Ors.
- Smt. Leelabai Gajanan Pansare & Ors. v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
- Municipal Council, Udaipur v. Mahendra Kumar
- M/S Nopany Investments (P) Ltd. v. Santokh Singh (Huf)
- Shri Mundri Lal v. Smt. Sushila Rani and Anr.
- Shri Mehboob Ali and Ors. v. Smt. Habiban
- Narayan Chandra Ghosh and Ors. v. Kanailal Ghosh and Ors.
- Shanti Prasad Devi and Anr. v. Shankar Mahto and Ors.
- Spun Casting and Engg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Dwijendra Lal Sinha (Dead) Through Lrs. and Ors.
- Charanjit Lal Mehra and Ors. v. Smt. Kamal Saroj Mahajan and Anr.
- Smt. Sudha Rani Garg v. Sri Jagdish Kumar (Dead) and Ors.
- Sri Inder Sain Bedi (Dead) by Lrs. v. M/S. Chopra Electricals
- Food Corporation of India and Ors. v. M/S. Babulal Agrawal
- Parwati Bai v. Radhika
- Sarwan Kumar and Anr. v. Madan Lal Aggarwal
- Bharat Lal Baranwal v. Virendra Kumar Agarwal
- M/S. Precision Steel and Engg. Works v. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal
- Sugarbai M. Siddiq and Ors. v. Ramesh S. Hankare (D) by Lrs.
- Laxmidas Bapudass Darbar and Anr. v. Smt. Rudravva Ors.
- Samir Mukherjee v. Davinder K. Bajaj and Ors.
- Vannattankandy Ibrayi v. Kunhabdulla Hajee