- (1.) The present first appeal has been filed by the defendant tenant Ram Pal s/o Mahadev Prasad under Section 96 CPC aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 02.05.2011 for eviction of a suit shop situated at Nokha, district Bikaner, in which the defendant appellant is carrying on the business in the name and style of M/s. Kanchan General Store, Pancharia Market, Ghantaghar, Nokha, Tehsil Nokha, district Bikaner.
(2.) The plaintiff / lessor / landlord Sohanlal s/o Hiralal by caste Pancharia, filed a suit on 25.01.2005, which was registered as 43/2005, which was later on registered as Suit No.129/2008 Sohanlal vs. Rampal and came to be decreed by the learned trial court on 02.05.2011. According to the plaintiff, the lease / tenancy in question was terminated after serving a notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act dated 22.11.2004 and sending the same by registered A.D. post to the defendant - lessee at the address of the suit shop on 22.11.2004 itself. On the acknowledgment receipt of which, the signatures of Rampal's adult son, Shri Suresh vide Ex.3 were obtained for service on 23.11.2004.
(3.) The learned trial court decided the said issue in favour of the plaintiff holding that the service under Section 106 of the Transfer of the Property Act terminating lease, was proper and in accordance with law on the said son Suresh, comparing his signatures on Ex.3 A.D. with another document Ex.7 a letter dated 19.01.2004 addressed to the defendant's business firm M/s. Kanchan General Store by M/s. Pancharia Transport of India, the plaintiff's another business firm a Transport Company, in which the acknowledgment of receipt by the said defendant's son were taken and comparing the signatures of the said son Shri Suresh on these two documents Ex. 3 and Ex.7, the learned court below came to the conclusion that the service on said son Suresh was in accordance with law and consequently the tenancy / lease stood terminated and accordingly the eviction suit was decreed, since in Nokha, Rent Control Act did not apply at that point of time. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant tenant appellant Rampal has preferred this first appeal in this Court, which was filed on 23.05.2011.;