RAJ MOHAN SINGH,J. - (1.) CM No. 8229-C of 2016 For the reasons mentioned in the application, appellant is allowed to make good the deficiency of court fee. Application stands disposed of. RSA No.3074 of 2016 (O&M) Defendant is in Regular Second Appeal against concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below in a suit for possession of a shop filed by the plaintiff after issuing notice of termination of tenancy under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act,1882 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act').
(2.) Brief facts as gathered from the record are that the plaintiff filed a suit for possession and recovery of arrears of rent on the ground that the property was owned by Raghunath Shiv Mandir. Plaintiff was the Mahant of the Mandir and was looking after its affairs. The shop was let out to the defendant vide lease deed dated 27.07.1999 @ L 800/- per month with 10% increase after every 11 months. Defendant was paying the rent against valid receipts. The last rent paid by the defendant was L 1888/- in the month of May 2009. Defendant was claimed to be in arrears of rent since May 2009. Plaintiff terminated the tenancy of the defendant by issuing notice under Section 106 of the Act on 03.05.2010. Since the defendant did not vacate the shop, therefore, suit came to be filed.
(3.) Defendant contested the suit on all counts. Defendant claimed that he was tenant since the year 1994 @ 375/- per month. He was running the business of travel services in the name and style of Priyanka Travel Services. Defendant claimed that the plaintiff had signed the receipts of rent in the name of Priyanka Travel Services. In the year 1999, defendant applied for STD/PCO connection in the concerned department. For that purpose, rent note dated 27.07.1999 was reduced into writing and as per that rent note, defendant started paying rent @ L 800/- per month from July 1999 till December 2000. Thereafter defendant started paying rent @ L 850/- per month till March 2010. However, plaintiff stopped issuing of receipts from April 2009. Defendant further submitted that he had never changed the nature of business, nor sublet the shop. The issuance of notice under Section 106 of the Act was denied as the same was never served upon him.;