RAJESH BINDAL, J. - (1.) - The defendant is in second appeal before this Court against the concurrent findings of fact by both the Courts below whereby suit for ejectment and recovery on account of rent, compensation for use and occupation, house tax etc. has been decreed against him.
(2.) THE respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment of the appellant/defendant from shop No. 11 and shed forming part of property No. 126-B situated at Staff Road, Ambala Cantt and for recovery of Rs. 3,030/- on account of rent, compensation for use and occupation, house tax etc. The tenancy was originally created vide rent deed dated September 12, 1985 executed between the parties whereby the shop was rented out to the appellant/defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 500/- from August 15, 1985 for a period of 11 months. Besides this local taxes were payable by the tenant. The tenant was debarred from making any addition or alteration in the tenanted premises. Thereafter, in the year 1988 the land abutting the shop was given on rent to the appellant/tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 350/- per month on which a temporary shed was erected by him with permission of the landlord. The rent was increased from time to time. However, the respondent/landlord issued a notice to the appellant/tenant under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short "the Act") on July 27, 1994 for delivery of vacant possession of the property in dispute. When the possession was not delivered, the suit was filed. It is the case of the landlord that initially there were two tenancies, namely, one for the shop and other for the open land. However, later on same merged into one and since long a composite receipt for the entire premises was being issued to the appellant/tenant to which no objection was raised at any time. It is even admitted by the appellant/tenant in the written statement filed by him that initially the rent was Rs. 915/- per month, which was revised from time to time and at the time of filing of written statement, the appellant/tenant was paying rent @ Rs. 1200/- per month for the open land underneath the shed and the shop. Learned trial Court on appreciation of evidence found that notice issued to the appellant/tenant under Section 106 of the Act was duly served and tenancy was terminated. The agreement signed between the parties showed that rent was payable monthly and not from year to year and accordingly the service of 15 days notice for termination of tenancy was a valid notice. Even before the lower Appellate court, the order passed by the learned trial Court was upheld.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the paper book.;