The court affirmed that eviction proceedings under the Transfer of Property Act remain valid despite subsequent enactments, provided they were initiated before the new law's applicability.

ORDER

1. This Civil Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC filed by the legal heirs of appellants-defendant-tenant (hereinafter 'the tenant') comes up challenging the judgment and decree dated 05.10.2021 by the learned Additional District Judge, Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar in Civil Appeal No. 17/2015 upholding and affirming the judgment and decree dated 27.10.2015 passed by the Civil Judge, Suratgarh in Civil Original Suit No.23/2013 decreeing the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff-landlord (hereinafter 'the landlord') for eviction and mesne profits.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Courts below.

3. The facts of the case The facts of the case as culled out from the record are that one Shop No.3 (measuring 10x23 sq. feet) situated at Jain Katla, Suratgarh of the respondent-landlord was let out to late Kamal Chand Savan Sukha @ Rs.1916/- per month and after his death, the shop is continuing in monthly tenancy of the present appellants.

4. The landlord issued a registered notice dated 09.03.2013 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act CTP Act herein after), terminating the tenancy of the respondent-tenant with effect from 31.03.2013, inter alia, alleging non-payment of rent and requirement of reconstruction of the shop as also the allegation of material alteration by the tenant. Then the landlord filed the civil suit for arrears of rent and eviction with the prayer for mesne profits @ 10,000/- per month before the Civil Judge, Suratgarh in the year 2013. At the time of filing the civil suit, the provisions of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act 2001 {herein after 'the Act of 2001'} was not in force in the municipal area of Suratgarh, therefore, this civil suit involving the provisions of the TP Act was maintainable.

5. The tenant-defendant filed written statement admitting his tenancy in the suit shop but denied the receipt of notice under the TP Act. It was contended that the defendants have deposited Rs.23,000 towards the due rent in the Bank account of the landlord on 27.09.2013 and said notice under the TP Act is misconceived. The claim of mesne profit Rs. 10,000/- per month was also denied and the civil suit was prayed to be dismissed.

6. Five issues were framed, which are referred in the impugned judgment dated 27.05.2015. Both the parties led their respective evidence. After hearing the parties and considering evidence of both the parties, the Trial Court decided the issues No.l and 2 in favour of the plaintiff-landlord and the issues No.3 and 4 against the defendant-tenant and accordingly passed decree for eviction against the tenant vide judgment dated 27.05.2015 and directed to hand over the vacant possession of the rented shop to the landlord as also to pay the arrear of due rent and continue to pay mesne profit @ Rs.3,000/- per month from April, 2013 onwards until delivery of the possession.

7. The trial court has recorded findings of fact that the tenancy between the parties was month-to-month and has been terminated by giving registered notice under Section 106 of the TP Act (Exhibits 1 and 2). In his statements, the tenant admitted that the address mentioned on the notice under Section 106 of TP Act was correct, therefore, the trial court drew presumption of service of the notice sent by registered post.

8. First Appeal there-against filed by the tenant was also dismissed by the appellate court vide judgment dated 05.10.2021. Hence this second appeal.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants- tenant submitted that the eviction decree passed by the civil court on 27.05.2015 is without jurisdiction as the Rent Control Act, 2001 was extended to the municipal area of Suratgarh vide Notification dated 11.07.2014 with effect from 11.05.2015 and therefore, jurisdiction of civil court stood ceased to pass the eviction decree on 27.05.2015. To substantiate his arguments, reliance has been placed on the judgment in the case of K. Ramnarayan Khandelwal v.