R.S.A. No. 2331 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2331 of 2007 Date of Decision : 30.01.2009 Nand Lal ....Appellant Versus Om Parkash ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Kulvir Narwal, Advocate for Mr. Ravi Verma, Advocate for the appellant. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This appeal is directed against the judgments of the learned trial Court dated 5.10.2006 and the first Appellate Court dated 15.3.2007. The plaintiff/respondent filed the suit alleging that he is the owner of the residential property which was described in the plaint and the appellant/defendant was a tenant therein @ Rs.50/- per month vide rent note dated 23.12.1983 for a period of 11 months. It is pleaded that the defendant/appellant has not paid the rent upto the month of December, 2002. It was thus claimed that the appellant is in arrears of rent @ Rs.100/- per month upto 24.12.2002. It was further pleaded that a legal notice under the provisions of Section 106 of the R.S.A. No. 2331 of 2007 -2- Transfer of property Act was served upon the appellant regarding termination of tenancy, which was duly received by him, but the appellant neither vacated the premises nor paid the rent. The appellant, who contested the suit, apart from taking other technical objections, pleaded that the respondent was not the landlord as the premises were rented out to him by the previous owners. However, it was clarified that earlier rent note had been executed in the name of Mohan Lal @ Rs.50/- per month. It was denied that the appellant had not paid the rent to the respondent as claimed by him. It was rather contended that rent for the months of January to April 2003 amounting to Rs.200/- had been sent to the respondent by post on 19.4.2003 but the plaintiff/respondent refused to accept the same. It was next pleaded that the appellant was always willing and ready to pay the rent. The factum of receipt of legal notice was admitted. Both the parties went to trial on the following issues :- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for possession by way of eviction in respect of premises as detailed in para no.3 of the plaint?OPP 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree for recovery of arrears of rent Rs.100/- and compensation for use and occupation after determination of tenancy with the interest at the rate of 18% per annum against the defendant alongwith costs of the suit?OPD 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable?OPD R.S.A. No. 2331 of 2007 -3- 4. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by her own act, conduct and admissions?OPD 6. Whether the suit is undervalued? OPD 7. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed because of concealment of material facts?OPD 8. Relief. During the course of proceedings, the defence of the appellant was struck off as he had failed to pay the rent. The said order was never challenged. As a consequence thereof no evidence was led by the appellant. Both the Courts came to the conclusion that the service of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act stood established by own admission of the appellant and that the rent had not been paid. Besides, there is no evidence led by the appellant in view of the fact that his defence was struck off. An attempt was made by him at the appellate stage by filing an application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C., but the same was also declined. In this view of the matter, when there are concurrent finding recorded by the Courts below regarding the service of notice upon the appellant under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act as also the fact that concededly no rent was paid by him, no interference is called for by this court. No substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. R.S.A. No. 2331 of 2007 -4- Consequently, the appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed. 30.1.2009 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss