1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Second Appeal No. 62 of 2006 Abdul Jamil s/o Abdul Habib ..vs.. Abdul Habib s/o Sk. Munir & 6 others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri V. M. Deshpande, Adv. for appellant. Shri J. J. Chandurkar, Adv. for respondent Nos. 2 to 5. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATED : 1st July, 2008. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellant is the original defendant No.1. A suit was filed by Sk. Ismail and Tajbi, who were the legal heirs of one Sk. Ibrahim, for eviction of the defendants from the suit property. According to the plaintiffs, they were the owners of the suit property having inherited the same from Sk. Ibrahim. It was the case of the plaintiffs that they had issued a notice to the defendants under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, terminating the tenancy of the defendants. Since, the defendants had not vacated the suit premises inspite of notice, the Suit was instituted by the plaintiffs for eviction and possession of the suit property. The claim of the plaintiffs was denied by the defendants though it was roughly admitted by the defendants 2 that the plaintiffs were the owners of the suit property. It was, however, denied in the written statement that the plaintiffs inherited the property from Sk. Ibrahim. It was further pleaded by the defendants that the plaintiffs had not terminated the tenancy of the defendants by the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The defendants denied the receipt of the notice issued by the plaintiffs. The defendants, therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit. The trial Court on an appreciation of the evidence on record held that the defendant No.1 had occupied the suit premises as a tenant on monthly rent of Rs.60/-. The trial Court held that there was a presumption that the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was served on the defendants and the plaintiffs had proved that the defendants have refused to accept the notice. The trial Court, however, held that the notice dated 4th May, 1989 was not a valid notice as the plaintiffs had themselves pleaded that the tenancy was determined in the month of January 1989. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff No.1 expired and his legal heirs were brought on record. Plaintiff No.2 and some of the legal heirs of plaintiff No.1 filed an appeal against the judgment passed by the trial Court and the first Appellate Court re-appreciated the evidence tendered by the parties on record to hold that the tenancy of the defendants was duly 3 terminated by the notice dated 4th May 1989. The first Appellate Court affirmed the finding that the notice dated 4th May 1989 was duly served on the defendants. The findings recorded by the first Appellate Court are pure findings of fact, which do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The second appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Andurkar.