V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. ( 1 ) SINCE this matter was heard a year back and directed to post for dictating judgment, learned counsel for the parties are heard afresh and I proceed to dictate the judgment. ( 2 ) THE facts that gave rise to this appeal are, respondent/plaintiff is the landlord and appellants/defendants are tenants. The parties are referred to as per their rank in the trial Court. ( 3 ) THE plaintiff terminated the tenancy of the defendants by issuing notice and calling upon them to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule premises. Since the defendants failed to comply with the same, the plaintiff filed the suit for ejectment. The defendants resisted the suit by filing objections admitting the jural relationship but denying service of notice. The trial Court framed issues and the suit went for trial. The plaintiff got examined himself as PW-1 and marked documents. He was also cross-examined. Despite granting sufficient opportunity, defendants did not examine any witness and failed to adduce evidence. On the basis of the material brought on record, the trial Court decreed the suit granting 60 days time to the defendants to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule premises. It also ordered for enquiry under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC regarding mesne profits. Being aggrieved by the same the present appeal is filed. ( 4 ) SINCE service of notice terminating the tenancy was in serious dispute, by order dated 1-7-2005 this Court permitted the defendants to cross-examine PW-1 on this aspect and also to adduce evidence on their behalf. The trial Court was directed to send its finding on the issue pertaining to service of notice. Accordingly, the trial Court has sent its finding holding that notice terminating the tenancy is served on both the defendants. ( 5 ) IN view of the finding recorded by the trial Court regarding service of notice, the contention of the defendants regarding non-service of notice is not tenable and the same is rejected. ( 6 ) IT is also pertinent to note that the plaint was presented before the trial Court along with copy of the legal notice and the postal acknowledgements. The Sheristedar has endorsed to that effect on the plaint However, at the time of recording evidence the postal acknowledgements were not available. The xerox copies of the same were marked as Exs. The Sheristedar has endorsed to that effect on the plaint However, at the time of recording evidence the postal acknowledgements were not available. The xerox copies of the same were marked as Exs. P-5 and 6 as secondary evidence. The contention of the plaintiff that the termination notices were issued upon the defendants is accepted by the trial court by recording the finding of fact on appreciation of pleadings and documentary evidence on record viz; Ex. P3 letter dt. 28/8/1999, reply to that letter as per Ex. P4 dt. 4/9/1999 and another letter written by defendant as per Ex. P10 dt 1/10/1999 wherein they have not stated that the notices were not served upon them, when this Court had given the defendants to cross-examine PW-1 and to adduce their evidence by this Court order dt. 1/7/2005 fw-1 has further examined himself and market the document at letter dt. 15/7/2004 written to the Post Master asking to furnish the authenticated copies of acknowledgements signed by the defendants, for which he had issued an endorsement dt. 2/8/2004 as per Ex. P8 stating that the documents are destroyed. The above said documents were rightly appreciated by the trial judge and further finding is recorded holding that the notices were served upon the defendants. Further the learned trial judge by placing reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1989 SC 630 it has been held that the notices of termination is served upon the defendants is held to be proved. That was done pursuant to the order dated 17-7-2004 passed on the interlocutory application filed under Section 65 of the Evidence Act. The said order was challenged in writ petition before this Court and the same was dismissed. For this reason also, the defendants cannot say that no notice of termination of tenancy was served upon them. ( 7 ) AFTER due termination of tenancy with the issuance of notice, the defendants were required to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule premises as provided under Section 108 (q) of Transfer of Property Act. Since they have failed to comply with the same, the trial court rightly decreed the suit directing them to vacate and hand over vacant possession to the plaintiff. Therefore, no fault, can be found with the same. Since they have failed to comply with the same, the trial court rightly decreed the suit directing them to vacate and hand over vacant possession to the plaintiff. Therefore, no fault, can be found with the same. ( 8 ) THE trial Court is also justified in ordering enquiry for mesne profits and the same is in accordance with law as they have not vacated and delivered vacant possession of schedule premises after the period mentioned in the termination was expired as required under Section. 108 (q) of the Transfer of Property Act, therefore that portion of the judgment does not call far interference in this Appeal. ( 9 ) FOR the first time in this appeal, a contention is raised that the tenant was the partnership firm to which the defendants are partners and no notice was issued to it and the suit is bad for non-joinder of the firm, which is a necessary party to the suit. This contention is wholly untenable in law. There is no dispute with regard to jural relationship between the parties. The same is evident from the pleadings, which are extracted herein. In para 3 of the plaint the plaintiff has averred as under: 3. The Defendants were the tenants of the premises under the Plaintiff on a monthly rent of Rs. 1750/- per month excluding electricity charges, and the tenancy being English calendar month. For the above averments, in the written statement the defendants in the first paragraph itself have stated as under: 1. . . The averment made in Para-3 that the Defendants were the Tenants of the Schedule Premises under the Plaintiff on a monthly rent of Rs. 1750/- per month excluding electricity charges and the tenancy being English calendar month is also admitted to the extent of this Defendant. In view of this admitted tenancy between the parties, the defendants cannot now turn-up and say that the partnership firm is the tenant. That apart, such a plea was not taken up in the written statement. 1750/- per month excluding electricity charges and the tenancy being English calendar month is also admitted to the extent of this Defendant. In view of this admitted tenancy between the parties, the defendants cannot now turn-up and say that the partnership firm is the tenant. That apart, such a plea was not taken up in the written statement. Even in the earlier H. R. C proceedings in H. R. C No. 1125/1994 filed by the plaintiff seeking an order of eviction against the defendants and they had also filed H. R. C No. 616/1998 under Section 19 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (repealed) also it was not claimed by them that the partnership firm is the tenant in respect of the suit schedule premises. In fact, the defendants themselves have paid the rents to the' plaintiff and not by the alleged partnership firm. The plea pertaining to the partnership is only art afterthought and this Court declines to entertain the same. Therefore, the suit is not bad for the alleged non-joinder of the alleged partnership firm. ( 10 ) ANOTHER contention urged by Mr. Jose Sabastian, learned Counsel for the Appellants is that since the signatures on the xerox copies of acknowledgements are seriously disputed, the same should have been got compared by the Hand Writing Expert with the admitted signatures and for that purpose the application filed by the defendants was rejected by the trial Court thereby it has committed an error in law. The contention of them deserves to be rejected for two masons. One is, the signatures are on postal acknowledgements addressed to the defendants. It is only the addressees on those acknowledgements can sign and not by others. Another reason is, the xerox copies of postal acknowledgements are marked as Exs. P5 and P6 which have been produced and marked as secondary evidence as the trial court has permitted by passing a detailed order on the application filed by the plaintiff. Hence, no suspicion or doubt can be raised on those documents. That apart, the comparison of signatures by an Handwriting expert as prayed by the defendants is only his opinion and that by itself will not be the conclusive proof. ( 11 ) THE conduct of the defendants is to harass the landlord in one or the other manner. Hence, no suspicion or doubt can be raised on those documents. That apart, the comparison of signatures by an Handwriting expert as prayed by the defendants is only his opinion and that by itself will not be the conclusive proof. ( 11 ) THE conduct of the defendants is to harass the landlord in one or the other manner. Before the trial Court they go on filing one or the other application with a view to protract the proceedings. The trial Court has observed the same. From June 2005 till now they have not paid the occupation charges. Without paying the same they are enjoying the property which conduct of them is a clear case of harassment of the plaintiff which is highly depreciable and the same is deprecated. ( 12 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the appeal is devoid of merit and the Appellants/defendants are not entitled to any relief. ( 13 ) IN the result, the appeal is dismissed. Three months' time is granted to the Appellants to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the premises to the landlord. The time is granted subject to the condition that they clear the occupation charges up to date immediately and file an affidavit of undertaking to pay the same regularly and also vacate the premises within the stipulated period. In the event of non-compliance, the plaintiff-landlord is at liberty to execute the decree as if no time is granted to them.