R.S.A. No. 2483 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- R.S.A. No. 2483 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- 9.12.2010 Sukhdev Singh ... Appellant Versus Narinder Singh & Anr. ... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. K.S.Rekhi, Advocate, for the appellant. Gurdev Singh, J (oral) The appellant/defendant – Sukhdev Singh has preferred this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28.10.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Tarn Taran, vide which the first appeal preferred by him against the judgment and decree dated 23.10.2007 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Patti, decreeing the suit of respondents/plaintiffs – Narinder Singh & Gurnam Singh, for his ejectment from the shop in dispute situated in village Gillpan, Tehsil Patti, District Amritsar and for the recovery of ` 16,800/- as arrears of rent and ` 1200/- per month as mesne profits for the use and occupation of the shop w.e.f. 1.7.2001 till the actual delivery of possession, was dismissed. The case of the plaintiffs is that plaintiff No.1 was the owner of the shop, which was sold to plaintiff No.2 for ` 1,00,000/-. Plaintiff No.1 had rented out that shop to the defendant in December 1997 at a monthly rent of ` 600/-. The tenancy was accompanied by delivery of possession. R.S.A. No. 2483 of 2010 (O&M) -2- After the shop was purchased by plaintiff No.2, he stepped into the shoes of the landlord. The defendant not only failed to pay the arrears of rent from 1.9.1999 to 30.6.2003, but also effected material alterations in the shop without their permission and his behavior is also not good towards them. His tenancy was terminated by serving a legal notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The suit was contested by the defendant. In his written statement he admitted that he is coming in possession of the shop in dispute as tenant @` 600/- per month. He denied the other contentions made in the plaint and pleaded that plaintiff No.1 received ` 7200/- as arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.1.1998 to 31.12.1998. He filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the plaintiffs from alienating the shop and also dispossessing him therefrom. He filed an application for interim injunction in that suit, which was dismissed on 16.4.2003. He preferred an appeal against that order, which was accepted subject to the deposit of rent by him in the lower Court and the same was deposited accordingly. The plaintiffs demolished the roof of the shop for which FIR No.42 dated 19.4.2003 was registered against them and others under Sections 380, 454 and 506 IPC. He also filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing the plaintiffs to reconstruct the shop. No such notice terminating the tenancy was received by him. He also pleaded that plaintiff No.1 has no cause of action to file the suit and the same is bad for misjoinder of the parties. The same is liable to be set aside under Section 10 C.P.C in view of the other suits filed by him. On the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed by learned trial Court:- R.S.A. No. 2483 of 2010 (O&M) -3- 1.Whether plaintiffs are entitled for decree of ejectment of defendant from the suit property detailed in the head note of the plaint?OPP 2. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of ` 21,600/- from the defendant alongwith mesne profits for use of occupation for future period?OPP 3. Whether the plaintiffs are esstopped by their act and conduct from filing the present suit?OPD 4. Whether suit is within limitation?OPD 5. Whether suit is bad for want of legal notice u/s 106 of Transfer of Property Act?OPD 6. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit?OPD 7. Whether suit is liable to be stayed under Section 10 of the CPC?OPD 8. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction?OPD 9. Whether suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties and cause of action?OPD 10.Relief. To prove their case, the plaintiffs examined Parvinderjit Singh PW1, Harbhajan Singh PW2, Gurnam Singh PW4, Salwinder singh PW5, Ashok Kumar PW6, Nachattar Singh PW7. Narinder Singh PW1 entered the witness box as PW3. For rebutting that evidence the defendant himself entered the witness box as DW1 and examined Surjit Singh DW2. R.S.A. No. 2483 of 2010 (O&M) -4- After going through that evidence and hearing learned counsel for both the sides, learned trial Court decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and resultantly decreed their suit. I have heard learned counsel for the defendant. Learned counsel for the defendant in this appeal only challenged the legality of the notice alleged to have been served by the plaintiffs under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 terminating his tenancy. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2008(2) Civil Court Cases 300 (M/s Nopany Investments (P) Ltd Vs. Santokh Singh, HUF) , this submission of the counsel has no force. It was held therein that filing of the suit for possession itself amounts to the notice to quit. Even if no notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 had been served before filing the suit or it is held that there was some illegality in the notice so served upon the defendant, even then the same has no effect on the merits of the case. In view of the ratio of the Apex Court, no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal and the same is dismissed accordingly. December 9, 2010 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge