The transfer of property act amendment 2002(3 of 2003) in the book of universal law publishing company pvt ltd. delhi author by Dr.Avtar Singh (second edition 2009 , reprinted 2010) as follows,
1.Subs. by Act 3 of 2003,sec 2,for section 106(w.e.f.31-12-2002).Section 106,before substitution,stood as under: "106.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 immoveable 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 expiring with the end of a year of the tenancy; and a lease of immoveable 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 expiring with the end of a month of the tenancy. In the case of "Rabindra Nath Pal vs Dr. Subodh Chandra Halder on 16 May, 2005" According to Mr. Roychowdhury, in fact, exhibit 6 is the notice whereas exhbit 6Ka is the reminder. It is submitted again that provision of Section 106 of the T.P. Act was amended in 2002 by Act 3 of 2003 whereby the provisions "with the expiry of the tenancy month" has been abolished. It is also argued that by Section 8 of that Amendment Act such amendment was given retrospective effect. Which is the proper one among the above two? Please reply as early as possible.
