R. S. A. No. 782 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 782 of 2010 Date of Decision : February 19, 2010 Resham Lal .... Appellant Vs. Ranjit Singh .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Amit Mehta, Advocate for the appellant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : This is second appeal by defendant Resham Lal, who has been unsuccessful in both the courts below. Respondent Ranjit Singh filed suit against the defendant for possession of disputed shop by ejectment of defendant therefrom and also for recovery of Rs.3,600/- as arrears of rent for three years preceding the suit @ Rs.100/- per month. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant is in possession of the disputed shop as tenant under the plaintiff at Rs.100/- per month rent. Defendant's tenancy has been terminated by serving registered post notice dated 27.01.2003, which the defendant refused to receive. However, the defendant failed to vacate the shop inspite of notice and also did not pay the arrears of rent. The defendant admitted that he is tenant in the disputed shop under the plaintiff. The defendant however alleged that rate of rent is R. S. A. No. 782 of 2010 2 Rs.40/- per month and he had tendered rent for the disputed period at the said rate, along with interest and the plaintiff has received the same in the Court during pendency of the suit. The defendant denied receipt of notice of termination of tenancy. He alleged that he never refused to receive the notice. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Garhshankar, vide judgment and decree dated 07.05.2004, partly decreed the suit and ordered ejectment of defendant from disputed shop, directing him to hand over the vacant possession thereof within two months, to the plaintiff. First appeal preferred by the defendant has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, vide judgment and decree dated 09.09.2009. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant has preferred this second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. The disputed shop is situated in Village Paldi and therefore, provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 are not applicable to the disputed shop. Defendant admitted his tenancy over the disputed shop. Consequently, the plaintiff was entitled to seek ejectment of the defendant from the disputed shop. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the notice of termination of tenancy was sent to Roshan Lal and not to Resham Lal defendant. However, no such plea was even taken before the courts below and therefore, this plea cannot be accepted in second appeal. In addition thereto, the plaintiff has examined Post Master Gurcharan Dass (PW-1), who has stated that he had handed over the registered post notice to Postman for delivery to Resham Lal. Vijay Kumar – Postman (PW-2) has also stated that he had gone to Resham Lal defendant to deliver the aforesaid letter and Resham Lal defendant refused to receive the same. From this cogent evidence, it is fully proved that it was the defendant Resham Lal, who refused to receive the notice of termination of R. S. A. No. 782 of 2010 3 tenancy. There is, therefore, no infirmity in the finding of the courts below that notice of termination of tenancy was served on the defendant by registered post, who refused to receive it and it was, therefore, valid service of the notice. Both the courts below have come to concurrent finding against the defendant regarding valid termination of his tenancy. The said finding is based on proper appreciation of evidence and is not shown to be perverse or illegal in any manner. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the plaintiff himself has not appeared in the witness box. However, this contention does not help the appellant because it is admitted fact that defendant was tenant in the disputed shop, whereas service of notice of termination of tenancy has been duly proved by leading cogent evidence of concerned Post Master and concerned Postman. Therefore, non-appearance of plaintiff himself in the witness-box has no adverse bearing on his case particularly because the plaintiff has examined his attorney as witness. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is found to be without any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. February 19, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE