- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) WHILE admitting the present second appeal, the following substantial questions of law were framed by this Court on 22.05.2012: - 1. Whether in the absence of address of appellant-defendant on the notice Exhibit-1, it can be inferred that the tenancy is legally determined by the respondents-plaintiffs? 2. Whether the compliance of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is made by the respondents-plaintiffs? This Court has heard the learned counsel for the appellant-tenant in connected second appeal being C.S.A. No.121/2012-Madan Lal Vs. Shri Puran Das Ji Ki Bagichi Trust, Bhilwara & Ors., which has been dismissed by this Court, which appeal is also similar on the facts and grounds, finding that no substantial questions of law arose in the second appeal. The notice [Exhibit-1] served on the tenant, was produced for perusal of the Court by the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant, Mr. Sandeep Saruparia, which is an 'Inland letter', [which is used as a letter-head of Mr. Arun Kumar Vyas, Advocate], copy of which vide notice dated 18.01.1996, was produced by the plaintiff-himself, and in the address column, of course, no address is given in the said letter, but the AD receipt produced shows that same was received by one Laxmi Lal. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent also submitted that in the statement of Devilal (original tenant), he has admitted that Laxmi Lal was his son. The courts below have treated the said service of the notice as sufficient. The defendant-tenant failed to produce either original copy of the notice purportedly served upon him and, so also, to establish that the recipient- Devi Lal, has not received the same and who was Laxmi Lal. In absence of same, the courts below cannot be said to have erred in arriving at the finding of fact that the notice was properly served upon the defendant-tenant and in determining the compliance of Section 106 of the Act of 1882. There is no perversity in these findings and consequently the substantial questions of law framed by this Court are answered in negative and against the defendant-appellant and eviction decree of the courts below deserves to be upheld. Consequently, the present second appeal is found to be devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.
(3.) THE appellant-defendant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit shop to the respondent-Trust within a period of six months from today and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.1000/- per month commencing from July, 2012 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the respondent also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period of six months for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The tenant shall also not sub- let, assign or part with the possession of the suit premises or any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and the same would be treated as void. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within one month and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit shop is not handed over to the respondent-landlord within a period of six months from today, besides execution of the decree in normal course, the respondent-plaintiff shall also be entitled to invoke contempt jurisdiction of this Court.;