RSA No.2173 of 2010 - 1 - ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2173 of 2010 Date of decision:13.08.2010. Harbans Lal ...Appellant Versus Kapil Kumar and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. J.P.Dhull, Advocate, for the appellant. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. Defendant is in second appeal against judgment and decree of both the Courts below by which suit filed by the plaintiffs for possession by way of ejectment and recovery of mesne profit, has been decreed. In short, the plaintiffs filed the present suit for possession by way of ejectment and recovery of mesne profit in respect of one shop measuring 10' x 12' situated in the area of Pehowa Chowk, Fatehpur, District Kaithal which was stated to be in possession of the defendant/appellant as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.200/-. As the defendant was allegedly in arrears of rent for the last six years, the plaintiffs decided to terminate his tenancy by RSA No.2173 of 2010 - 2 - ****** serving a notice upon him under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 [for short “the Act] and in pursuant thereto a notice dated 03.05.2005 was served upon the defendant through Ashok Kumar Nirwani, Advocate. It was alleged that the said notice was duly received by the defendant/appellant as it was replied by him through Harpal Singh, Advocate. The plaintiffs claimed vacant possession of the demised premises along with the arrears of rent for a period of three years preceding the date of filing of suit and also for damages @ Rs.1,000/- per month from the date of filing of suit till the recovery of possession. In defence, it was alleged that the demised premises is situated within the municipal limits of Pundri and is not within the abadi deh of village Fatehpur and as such it is amenable to the provisions of Haryana Urban Rent Restriction (Control and Eviction) Act, 1973. The defendant admitted himself to be tenant in the demised premises, but it was denied that the plaintiffs are the owners. He alleged that he had taken the demised property on rent in the year 1974 on payment of Rs.30/- per month from one Tulsi Ram son of Matu Ram. The rent was increased from time to time and on the date of filing of suit, it was Rs.185/- per month. It was also alleged that Tulsi Ram had been regularly receiving rent from the defendant without issuing any receipt and after his death, the rent of the demised premises is being received by plaintiff No.1 – Kapil Kumar, but he too is not issuing any receipt. He also alleged that earlier notice was issued RSA No.2173 of 2010 - 3 - ****** to him by Ravi Dutt Sharma, Advocate on 16.05.2002 under Section 106 of the Act on behalf of Tulsi Ram and others and, therefore, the present notice was invalid. On the pleadings of the parties, various issues were framed by the learned Trial Court on 28.09.2005. After obtaining evidence, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for possession along with arrears of rent w.e.f. May 1999 to 21.05.2002, but claim of the plaintiffs for mesne profit was declined. The learned First Appellate Court meticulously discussed each argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant with respect to status of the plaintiffs being landlords, the validity of notice under Section 106 of the Act, plaint having been signed by one of the plaintiffs despite the suit has been filed by other plaintiffs and also for recovery of arrears of three years. After discussing each and every point in detail, the learned First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the defendant/appellant upholding the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the Courts below, the present second appeal has been filed before this Court in which, during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant has not raised any question of law much-less substantial. He argued the case on facts on which already a concurrent finding has been recorded by the Courts below. The learned counsel for the appellant has even failed to find fault in the finding of fact RSA No.2173 of 2010 - 4 - ****** though this Court is not obliged to find fault in the finding of fact recorded by the Courts below. Thus, in the absence of any substantial question of law as envisaged under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and as such the same is hereby dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. August 13, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE