RSA No. 3596 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3596 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: December 14, 2010 Tirath Singh and another ...Appellants Versus Jiwan Singh ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. H.S. Mann, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate, for the respondent. GURDEV SINGH, J. Heard. According to the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants, the following substantial questions of law arise in the present appeal:- 1. The notice served upon the defendants by the respondent/plaintiff under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was not legal and valid. 2. The application of the plaintiff for leading additional evidence was wrongly allowed by the trial court under Order 18 Rule 17A CPC, as the said section was repealed by the Amendment Act 24 of 2002. 3. The rate of rent was not determined by the lower courts. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for the ejectment of the RSA No. 3596 of 2010 2 defendants from the premises on the ground that they were in possession thereof as tenants under him @ ` 1200/- per month and their tenancy was duly terminated by serving a notice under Section 106 of the Act. The suit was contested by the defendants on othe ground that they were tenants @ ` 80/- per month and they were never asked by the plaintiff to vacate the shop and no such notice terminating their tenancy was served upon them. On the basis of the evidence produced by both the sides and hearing learned counsel on their behalf, the findings were recorded in favour of the plaintiff and the suit was decreed by the Additional Civil Judge (SD) Kapurthala, vide judgment and decree dated 23.4.2009. The first appeal filed by the defendants against that judgment and decree was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Kapurthala, vide judgment and decree dated 30.7.2010. This second appeal has been filed against those judgments and decree and counsel for the defendants has come up with the above said substantial questions of law. Even if the notice under Section 106 of the Act is not held to be legal and valid, even then the same would have no effect on the merit of the suit, in view of the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2008 Supreme Court 673 (Nopany Investments (P) Ltd. M/s V. Santokh Singh (HUF), wherein it was held that the suit for ejectment itself amounts to notice to quit under Section 106 of the Act. The other two questions also do not arise in the present appeal. The order passed by the trial court allowing additional evidence was never challenged by filing a revision petition against that order. That order could have been challenged in the first appeal under Section 104 of RSA No. 3596 of 2010 3 the CPC but was never challenged. The same has not even been challenged in this second appeal. Non recording of finding with regard to rate of rent is not material as the suit of the plaintiff was not for recovery of arrears of rent, nor any decree was passed in his favour to that effect. In view of the above stated facts, no substantial question of law arise in the present appeal. The same is hereby dismissed. December 14, 2010 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE