A simple tenancy can be terminated by service of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, and once a valid notice is served, the possession of the tenant becomes illegal and unlawful.

KARAMJIT SINGH, J.

By way of present appeal, the appellant/defendant has laid challenge to the judgments and decrees dated 16.2.2017 and 21.3.2022 passed by the Courts below whereby the suit for possession and to pay arrears of rent and mesne profits along with interest filed by respondents No.1 and 2 has been decreed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondents No.1 and 2 are owners of shop in dispute bearing No.6, Old No.209-A situated in Bakala Market, Sadhaura, Tehsil and District Yamuna Nagar and that the appellant was inducted as a tenant in the said shop at monthly rent of Rs.1000/-. The appellant failed to pay rent since 1.4.2011 and also impaired the value and utility of the shop. Respondents No.1 and 2 terminated the tenancy of the appellant by serving him legal notice dated 11.1.2012 but he failed to vacate the shop in question. Hence the suit.

3. The suit was contested by the appellant who filed written statement taking preliminary objections with regard to maintainability of the suit, locus standi and cause of action of respondents No.1 and 2. On merits, the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was denied and it was pleaded that Parkash Chand father of respondents No.1 and 2 was owner of the shop and he let out the same to the appellant at monthly rent of Rs. 225/- vide rent note dated 7.1.1989 and with the passage of time, the rent was enhanced to Rs. 290/- per month and then to Rs. 430/- per month and Parkash Chand was regularly receiving the rent against proper receipts. In 2008, Parkash Chand fell ill and then his wife Saraswati Devi started receiving rent and the appellant paid rent up to December, 2011 to her. Thereafter, the entire rent was being deposited in the Court. Prayer was made that the suit be dismissed.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed : -

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for ejectment, possession, recovery and for grant of mesne profits as detailed in the head note of the plaint? OPP

2. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus-standi to file and maintain the present suit? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit by their own act and conduct? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiffs have not come to the court with clean hands and suppressed true and material facts from the Court? OPD

6. Relief.

5. Respondents No.1 and 2 in support of their case examined PW1 Rajvinder Singh, Draftsman and respondent No.2-Virender Kumar as PW2 who tendered into evidence documents legal notice dated 11.1.2012 Ex.P6, postal receipt and acknowledgement Ex.P7 and Ex.P8 and reply to the legal notice Ex.P9. PW3-Rohtash Singh, DRK proved documents Ex.P2 to Ex.P5. Respondents No.1 and 2 also tendered notification Ex.P12, sale deed Ex.P13 and site plan Ex.P14.

6. On the other hand, the appellant himself appeared in the witness box as DW1 and proved rent deed Ex.D1 and rent receipts Ex.D2 to Ex.D16 and reply to the legal notice as Ex.D17. DW2-Shiv Charan also proved rent deed Ex.D1 being it's attesting witness, DW-3/Rameshwar Dass, Clerk, UHBVNL proved electricity bills Ex.D18 to Ex.D23. DW4/Nitin Kumar, Sub Post Master proved postal receipts and money order receipts Ex.D24 to Ex.D28, Sumit Kumar Arora, Handwriting Expert while appearing in the witness box proved his report Ex.D29 and photograph charts Ex.D30 to Ex.D35, DW-6/Shiv Ram proved authority letter Ex.D36 and copies of house tax registers and receipts Ex.D37 to Ex.D40, DW7 Yashpal Mehta, Stamp Vendor proved relevant entry of his register Ex.D41. The appellant also tendered copy of notice dated 27.5.1996 mark 'X'.

7. After hearing counsel for the parties and going through the entire record, learned trial Court held that the provisions of Rent Act were not applicable to the property in dispute at the time of filing the suit and further vide notice dated 11.1.2012 Ex.P6, tenancy stands terminated and ultimately, the suit was decreed.

8. The appeal preferred