JUDGMENT 1. - This first appeal has been filed by the defendant - tenant aggrieved by the findings of eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the son of landlord, namely, Sh. Digvijay Singh and him were not established and he referred to Ex.A/1 written by the father of Digvijay Singh, namely Sh. Chandraveer Singh in which he stated that the rent for the shop in question may not be paid to anybody else and upon his return from the village Bijolia, he may be paid the said rent, therefore, he submitted that the plaintiff Digvijay Singh S/o Chandraveer Singh could not file the suit for possession after terminating the tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. 3. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondents - plaintiff drew the attention of the Court towards para 26 of the impugned judgment and decree in which referring to Ex.5 and 6, he stated that the said defendant himself had admitted in the previous suit filed by him against the present plaintiff and father that the rent for the shop in question was paid to present plaintiff Digvijay Singh and in view of own admission of the defendant, relationship of landlord and tenant was established on that basis, therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff has rightly been decreed with direction to the defendant to pay arrears of rent of Rs. 64,400/- and monthly mesne profit of Rs. 400/- per month. 4. Having heard the learned counsel, this Court is of the opinion that upon appreciation of evidence, the learned Court below has rightly come to the conclusion that the lease was determined and terminated according to law as per the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and the defendant appellant was liable to handover the vacant possession of the shop in question and was also liable to pay arrears of rent and mesne profit. No proof of payment of rent even to father Chandraveer Singh has been adduced before the learned trial Court. Therefore, the decree of eviction has been rightly passed. 5. The present first appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. No proof of payment of rent even to father Chandraveer Singh has been adduced before the learned trial Court. Therefore, the decree of eviction has been rightly passed. 5. The present first appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. The appellant shall hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the decree holder within a period of two months from today. The appellant will not cause any further obstruction or put anybody else in possession of the said suit shop till he hands over vacant and peaceful possession to the respondent - decree holder. The appellants shall also pay mesne profit as already directed by the learned Court below per month. If the vacant and peaceful possession is not handed over to the decree holder within a period of two months, the respondent - decree holder shall not only be entitled to execute the decree forthwith and the learned trial Court is directed to execute the said decree forthwith and secure vacant possession from anybody who is found in possession of the said suit premises and the respondent - decree holder shall also be at liberty to approach this Court by way of contempt petition if such vacant and peaceful possession is not handed over to the respondents or mesne profit is not paid to him within a period of two months. No order as to costs.Appeal Dismissed. *******