JUDGMENT 1. - This second appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 23.11.2005 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kotputli District Jaipur, and against the judgment dated 06.08.2010 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kotputli, District Jaipur. By the former judgment, the learned Civil Judge decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff-respondent, Keshav Sagar Dharamshala Paota, and has directed the eviction of defendant-appellant, Ram Singh. By the latter judgment, the former judgment has been upheld. Hence, this second appeal before this Court. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent had filed a civil suit against the defendant for eviction from a shop, and for recovery of rent. The defendant-appellant submitted his written statement. He stated that he has taken the shop in question from the plaintiff on rent @ Rs. 250/- per month. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed four issues including relief. The plaintiff examined four witnesses and exhibited three documents. On behalf of the defendant-appellant three witnesses were examined. The learned trial Court, vide its order dated 23.11.2005, decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff. Against the judgment and decree dated 23.11.2005, the defendant-appellant preferred a civil regular appeal before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kotputli, District Jaipur. The first appellate court, vide judgment dated 06.08.2010, dismissed the appeal of the defendant-appellant and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 23.11.2005. Hence, this second appeal before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the appellant had paid the rent to the respondent. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court that the appellant is a defaulter is unfounded. Secondly, Dharamshala does not need the shop for its personal use. Therefore, the appellant should not have by been evicted by the learned trial Court. 4. Heard the learned counsel and perused the impugned judgments. 5. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment dated 23.11.2005 clearly reveals that the learned Civil Judge has noticed the fact that although the appellant claimed that he had deposited the rent with the plaintiff, but he could not produce any receipt to substantiate his claim. There is a difference between a statement made before a Court, and a proof thereof. The mere making of a statement is not sufficient proof. The statement is to be buttressed by certain proof. There is a difference between a statement made before a Court, and a proof thereof. The mere making of a statement is not sufficient proof. The statement is to be buttressed by certain proof. In the present case, although the appellant has claimed, in his testimony, that he had deposited the rent amount with the plaintiff, he has failed to prove this fact. Therefore, the learned Civil Judge was certainly justified in concluding that the appellant has been a defaulter. 6. As far as the second contention is concerned, the contention is without any merit. Admittedly, the case was not covered by the Rajasthan Rent Control Act. The entire case was covered by the Transfer of Property Act. According to the plaintiff, he had sent a notice to the appellant, which the appellant had refused to accept. Therefore, while deciding issue No.2, the learned trial Court had correctly concluded that once a notice was refused, the knowledge of notice may be presumed. Once the notice was sent under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the relationship between the landlord and the plaintiff stands automatically determined. 7. Thus, this court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment dated 23.11.2005. The judgment dated 06.08.2010 has merely confirmed the reasoning given by the learned trial Court. Hence, there is no illegality in the judgment dated 06.08.2010 either. 8. Lastly, no substantial question of law has arisen in the present appeal. 9. For the reasons stated above, this appeal is without any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******