JUDGMENT Mrs. Sabina, J.:- Plaintiffs filed a suit for possession alleging therein that they were owner in possession of plot bearing Khasra No. 813 situated at village Badli. Plaintiffs had given two shops on rent to defendant. Defendant was paying monthly rent of Rs.500/- p.m. for each shop. Defendant had, however, failed to pay the rent after July 1995 and hence, an amount of Rs.36,000/- was liable to be recovered from the defendant. Defendant had changed the roof of the shop without the consent of the plaintiffs. Defendant had failed to pay the electricity bill and got the connection disconnected. Defendant removed the old electricity meter and was in arrears of electricity charges amounting to Rs.37,000/-. Plaintiffs had terminated the tenancy of the defendant on 30.6.1997. 2. Defendant in his written statement averred that the plaintiffs had no concern with the property in question. In fact, Udho Dass and Nanak Chand were owners of Khasra No. 813. Defendant had purchased the suit property from Udho Dass and legal representatives of Pannu Ram. Construction was raised by Pannu Ram and Nanak Chand over the plot in dispute and two shops were given by them on rent in the year 1991 at monthly rent of Rs.100/- each. In the year 1996, the rent was increased to Rs.150/- per month for each shop. Defendant was a tenant under Udho Dass and Nanak Chand. There was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. 3. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is owner of the disputed property mentioned in para No.2 of the plaint?OPP 2. Whether if issue no.1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for possession as prayed for on the grounds as alleged in the plaint?OPP 3. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction?OPD 4. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus-standi to file the present suit?OPD 5. Whether suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 6. Relief” 4. The trial Court partly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and directed the defendant to hand over the vacant possession of the shop in dispute to the plaintiffs. So far as suit qua recovery was concerned, the same was dismissed. Whether suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 6. Relief” 4. The trial Court partly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and directed the defendant to hand over the vacant possession of the shop in dispute to the plaintiffs. So far as suit qua recovery was concerned, the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Jhajjar vide judgment and decree dated 30.8.2010. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that numerous documents had been proved on record by the appellant but the same had not been considered by the Courts below. The matter relating to partition had gone upto the Apex Court and the Apex Court had given a direction to the Tehsildar Bahadurgarh to decide the matter afresh. The Tehsildar vide order dated 19.5.2000 had held that Khasra No. 813 had come to the share of Pannu Ram and Udho Dass as per consolidation record. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. 7. It had come on record that Udho Dass and Nanak Chand had filed a suit against the plaintiffs and others claiming to be coowner in the suit land. However, the said suit was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge Senior Division Bahadurgarh, vide judgment dated 15.10.1999. The appeal filed by Udho Dass and Nanak Chand against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Jhajjar vide judgment and decree dated 16.12.1999. The certified copies of the judgments and decrees were proved on record. Since the said decrees had not been set aside by any higher Court, the same had attained finality. The case of the defendant was that as per order dated 19.5.2000, Udho dass had become owner of the suit property. However, the said order was set aside by the Collector Jhajjar vide order dated 16.5.2001. Mutation sanctioned in favour of Udho Dass was also set aside vide order dated 16.5.2001. The case of the appellant was also to the effect that he had purchased the property in dispute from Udho Dass vide sale deed Exhibit D1 dated 5.7.2000. Since Udho Dass himself was not owner of the property in dispute, he could not pass on a better title to the appellant. The case of the appellant was also to the effect that he had purchased the property in dispute from Udho Dass vide sale deed Exhibit D1 dated 5.7.2000. Since Udho Dass himself was not owner of the property in dispute, he could not pass on a better title to the appellant. The sale deed executed by Udho Dass was not binding on the plaintiffs. The fact that the appellant had been paying rent to Udho Dass also does not advance the case of the appellant as Udho Dass could not accept rent from the appellant as he was not landlord of the property in dispute. 8. Plaintiffs had terminated the tenancy of the appellant vide notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act,1882. The appellant had refused to accept notice. In these circumstances, the Courts below had rightly held that the tenancy of the appellant stood terminated. The Courts below had,thus, rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff qua possession. Hence, there is no force in submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant.No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. -----------0.K.B.0------------