R.S.A. No. 4191 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 4191 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.12.2008 Jit Singh ..Appellant v. Jeon Singh .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. G.S. Gill, Advocate for the appellant. .. Rajesh Bindal J. The defendant is in second appeal before this Court against concurrent finding of fact by both the courts below, whereby the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff for possession by way of ejectment from the room situated on the first floor of the house situated near Bus Adda Chowk, Village and Post Office Nadala, Tehsil Bholath, District Kapurthala and further for recovery of Rs. 26,000/- along with interest as arrears of rent was decreed only to the extent of possession and recovery of arrears @ Rs. 300/- per month from 1.7.1998 to 31.3.1999 along with interest @ 6% per annum. Briefly, the facts are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of ejectment with the plea that the appellant-defendant was inducted as a tenant in the room owned by the respondent-plaintiff @ Rs. 1,000/- per month, where he was carrying on the business of STD/PCO. It was alleged that the respondent-plaintiff required the room for his personal use and occupation for comfortable living of his family. On request by the respondent-plaintiff, the appellant-defendant vide writing dated 4.7.1998 agreed to vacate the room on or before 30.3.1999 but he did not act upon the undertaking and filed a suit for permanent injunction, where he denied the undertaking dated 4.7.1998 given by him. The suit filed by the appellant-defendant was decreed with the observation that the respondent-plaintiff could get the possession of the room by adopting due process of law. In the process, a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was issued, but the terms thereof were not complied with and this necessitated the filing of the suit. R.S.A. No. 4191 of 2008 [2] The learned trial court decreed the suit for possession and for recovery of rent only to the extent of Rs. 300/- per month from 1.7.1998 to 31.3.1999 along with interest @ 6% per annum. The learned lower appellate court upheld the judgment and decree of the trial court. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that service of notice issued by the respondent-plaintiff under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was not proved as no proof thereof was produced on record. There was no opinion of expert witness on record which could corroborate the stand of the respondent-plaintiff that notice was in fact served upon him. The court had itself compared the signatures and formed the opinion which was not the right course. He further submitted that even the relief granted with regard to recovery of rent for the period mentioned above was also not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case, as the appellant-defendant had in fact paid the entire rent to the respondent-plaintiff. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. The notice (Ex. P2) terminating the tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was sent through registered post which was duly received by the appellant-defendant vide receipt (Ex. P4). Another writing (mark-P5) was proved on record by the respondent-plaintiff on which the appellant, in his cross-examination, had admitted his signatures. This is an undertaking by the appellant-defendant on 4.7.1998 stating that he will vacate the room on or before 30.3.1999. Though the appellant-defendant sought to deny the receipt of notice, but the learned court below compared the signatures on the receipt of notice (Ex. P4) with the admitted signatures of the appellant on the written statement and opined that even from a naked eye, the signatures were found to be of a same person. Still further, a judgment of this Court in Amrit Lal Sharma v. Narinder Sharotri, (2000-1) 124 PLR 806 was referred to for the purpose that if a notice is sent by registered post properly addressed, it shall be presumed to have been delivered to the addressee and there was no obligation to prove the service of notice by examining the Postman. Considering the fact that in the present case, the court had itself found that signatures on the receipt of notice were of the appellant, if compared with his admitted signatures, there was no need to ask for a report of an expert as the experts are merely to assist the court to reach a conclusion in case of any dispute. In my opinion, no illegality has been committed by the learned court below in decreeing the suit of the respondent- plaintiff as regards possession of the room is concerned. As far as claim regarding rent is concerned, even though in the suit recovery of Rs. 26,000/- was claimed for R.S.A. No. 4191 of 2008 [3] the period from 1.7.1998 to 31.8.2000 @ Rs. 1,000/- per month, however, considering the material placed on record where the appellant could not prove the payment of rent for the period, the court had decreed the suit for recovery only for the period from 1.7.1998 to 31.3.1999 @ Rs. 300/- per month and the amount in dispute being merely Rs. 2,700/-, I do not see any reason to interfere with the concurrent finding of the courts below on this issue as well. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find that any substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 22.12.2008 mk