Regular Second Appeal No. 559 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 559 of 2008. (O&M) Date of Decision: 1.4.2009 *** State of Punjab & Ors. .. Appellants VS. Sharan Kaur (dead) through LR Inderjit Minhas .. Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. B.S. Sra, DAG Punjab. Mr. R.P. Singh, Advocate for the respondent. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. This is defendants' regular second appeal. They have been lost concurrently in a suit for possession filed by plaintiff-respondent and have been directed to hand over the vacant possession of the premise in dispute and to pay Rs.2624/- per month w.e.f. February 2006 along with 6% interest per annum till the vacation of the same. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the paper-book carefully. The perusal of judgments passed by the Courts below reveal that the relationship between the parties as tenant-landlord is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the lease-deed had expired on 28.2.2002. The service of notice upon the appellants for termination of their tenancy is also not disputed by them since they themselves replied the same. Although the said notice was composite under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act as well as Section 80 CPC, but considering the scope of issuance of notice to make the other party aware of initiation of proceedings before the property forum, it has been held that the plaintiff had validly issued the composite notice and had validly terminated the tenancy of the respondents from the premises in question and the notice was in consonance with the requirement of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 80 Regular Second Appeal No. 559 of 2008 2 CPC. Further, it has rightly been held that the suit was filed and pursued by duly authorized persons. Learned State counsel has failed to show anything, leading to a contrary view. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the approach of the Courts is either illegal or perverse. Nothing has been shown to take a contrary view than the one recorded by the Courts below. No substantial question of law, which is sine qua non for admission of appeal, is made out. The appeal is wholly without merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE April 1,2009 Jiten