RSA No.3029 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.3029 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 2, 2011 Gurmej Singh .....Appellant v. Swaran Singh alias Swaran Dass alias Swaran Nath .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Ramesh Chand Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.8308-C of 2011 In view of the facts mentioned in the application, delay of 7 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of accordingly. C.M.No.8309-C of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. RSA No.3029 of 2011 Present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 19.1.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, vide which appeal filed by present appellant-defendant against judgment and decree dated 26.7.2008 passed by learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Nakodar, was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including the judgments passed by learned Courts below. Briefly stated, respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for possession by RSA No.3029 of 2011(O&M) -2- way of ejectment of present appellant-defendant from the premises in dispute on the ground that he is owner of the same and that the same was given to him on oral lease for a period of 11 months w.e.f. 20.1.1990 to 19.12.19090 @ ` 1,000/- per month and, however, after expiry of contractual period of tenancy, present appellant failed to vacate the same and continued to occupy the same. Further plea has been taken that the lease has since been terminated by issuing a legal notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter to be referred as the `Act') dated 24.9.2002. However, on refusal of appellant-defendant to vacate the premises in dispute, the present suit has been filed. Suit has been contested by present appellant-defendant admitting that he came in possession of the same as a tenant. However, he has taken the plea that he has been paying the rent regularly and that no notice was served upon him. Learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by respondent-plaintiff by holding that the notice under Section 106 of the Act has been duly proved to have been served upon the appellant-defendant and that admittedly he has not filed any reply to the same and he has failed to hand over the possession to the respondent-plaintiff and even rent was not paid. Appeal was filed by present appellant-defendant against the said judgment. Operation of the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court was stayed by learned appellate Court subject to payment of rent and however even the said order was not complied with. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by the courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The RSA No.3029 of 2011(O&M) -3- said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. 2.9.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge