S.B.CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.5/2009 - Laxmi Devi vs. M/sRajvilas Palace Hotel & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 4/2/2009 1/3 S.B.CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.5/2009 (Laxmi Devi vs. M/sRajvilas Palace Hotel & Ors.) DATE OF ORDER : 4/2/2009 HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.M.S.Purohit, for the appellant. Mr.Sajjan Singh, for the respondent. Heard learned counsels. By concurrent judgments, both the courts below have passed the eviction decree on the ground that respondent plaintiff had served proper notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act as according to Section 3 (v), definition of Premises, clause (c ) does not include a room or other accommodation in a hotel, Dharamshal, inn, Sarai, Lodging house, Boarding house or hotel and, therefore, lease having been terminated by the plaintiff respondent, defendant was liable to be evicted from the suit premises in question. Learned counsel for the defendant Mr.M.S.Purohit submitted that the said lease deed was executed by the plaintiff nos. 2 to 6, who were the original landlord, in favour of the plaintiff no.1 M/s Rajvilas Palace Hotel Pvt. Ltd. for their own income tax purpose and S.B.CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.5/2009 - Laxmi Devi vs. M/sRajvilas Palace Hotel & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 4/2/2009 2/3 defendant had never admitted the said lease deed in favour of respondent no.1 company and, therefore, plaintiff could proceed only under the provisions of Rent Control Act, 1950 and provisions of Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act would not apply in the present case. These contentions have been opposed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent, who drew the attention of the Court towards para no.3 of the written statement of the defendant in which the defendant categorically stated that she had remitted the rent of Rs.2600/- @ Rs.650/- per month for the period 1.1.2000 to 30.4.2000 to the plaintiff no.1 – Rajvilas Palace Hotel Pvt. Ltd. Both the courts below have therefore, found that provisions of Rent Control Act, 1950 did not apply in the present case and notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act having been properly served, the tenancy stood terminated and the defendant is liable to be evicted. Having gone through the impugned judgments of the courts below and provisions of the Act, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal. The second appeal is found to be devoid of merit and same is accordingly S.B.CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.5/2009 - Laxmi Devi vs. M/sRajvilas Palace Hotel & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 4/2/2009 3/3 dismissed. The appellant-defendant shall handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property to the plaintiff-respondents within a period of two months from today and shall also pay the arrears of rent, if any, and mesne profit as determined by the trial court till the vacant possession is handed over, otherwise besides normal execution of decree, the defendant may also be held liable for contempt. (DR.VINEET KOTHARI), J. item no.2 baweja/-