Short Note : 1. The only point which was urged before this Court at this stage in second appeal was that since the appellant-defendant tenant had already handed over possession of the tenanted premises to the previous landlord before the service of the notice containing intimation of the transfer of the suit-house in favour of the plaintiff, the appellant should not have been made liable for mesne profits because neither on the date of suit nor during the pendency of the same he was in possession of the suit premises. This contention cannot be accepted for the reason that the very foundation of it is missing due to the finding of fact that the appellant did not vacate the suit premises prior to the service of the notice by the transferee. The Courts below have relied on the following circumstances for holding so. It was not disputed that despite service of the notice by the transferee the appellant did not give any reply stating the fast that he had vacated the suit premises and handed over the possession to the previous, landlord. Even while filing the written statement, the defendant did not make any reference to the alleged receipt which he had obtained from the previous landlord showing delivery of possession prior to the institution of the suit. No date of delivery of possession to the previous landlord was given in t he written statement nor any reference to the receipt was made. Under these circumstances, the Courts below concurrently found it as a fact that the defendant during the pendency of the suit handed over the possession of the suit-premises to the previous owner despite having known that the suit-house has been transferred to the plaintiff and that he was claiming himself to be the landlord. 2. Shri Katare, learned counsel for the appellant, further contended that the circumstance of omission to give any reply to the service of the notice or to make a reference to the receipt or to plead the actual date of vacating the suit house and handing over the possession in the written statement was not material circumstance for rejecting the case of the appellant. In my opinion, this contention too cannot be accepted. In my opinion, this contention too cannot be accepted. If the defendant had actually vacated the suit premises before the service of notice and had obtained a receipt in that at respect the natural conduct on his part, on receipt of the notice from the transferee, would have been to give a reply to that effect. Even if that was not done and, when undisputedly the defendant was in possession of the receipt and was knowing the date on which he claims to have delivered possession to the original landlord, in the same should have been stated in the written statement in detail and the said document should have been produced and referred. This contention is also, therefore rejected. 3. For the reasons stated above, the concurrent findings below is not open for interference. Once it is held that the defendant did not hand over possession or the tenanted premises to the plaintiff despite service notice of intimation of the purchase, he was liable for arrears of rent and mesne profits to the transferee-landlord and the same has been rightly decreed in favour of the plaintiff. Appeal dismissed.