JUDGMENT 1. - The defendant-tenant has filed this second appeal being aggrieved by the concurrent decree of eviction passed by the Courts below in favour of respondent landlord Shrimali Brahmin Samaj Vikas Samiti, Pali. The eviction decree was passed by the learned trial Court on 6.11.2008 whereby the suit No. 165/2005 was decreed and appeal against the same being Appeal No. 42/2008 was dismissed by tie learned appellate Court on 2.11.2010. The grounds on which the eviction decry. was passed by the Courts below is bona fide necessity and parting with the possession of portion of the suit premises in favour of one M/s. Surana Paper Board. 2. Mr. M.C. Bhoot, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Surendra Singh, learned counsel appearing for the defendant-tenant urged that though the question of title of the respondent is not relevant in the eviction matter, however, the defendant-tenant has never denied the title of the plaintiff Shrimali Brahmin Vikas Samiti, but there was no evidence to show that said Vikas Samiti fell within the definition of land-lord as defined in Section 3(iii) of the Rent Control Act, 1950 which defines the term landlord as under : "3(iii) 'landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent if the premises were let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub- tenant." 3. The learned counsel for the appellant-defendant relying upon the following decisions in support of his submissions urged that the defendant-tenant never paid any rent to the plaintiff Vikas Samiti nor so called admission made by the defendant in reply to the notice of Advocate of the plaintiff served upon the tenant can be said to be admission in categoric terms and therefore, it cannot be said that on the admission of the defendant-tenant, the relationship of landlord and tenant between the two was established. He submitted that even re- appreciation of evidence can be done in second appeal and on the substantial question of law formulated in the memo of appeal, the present appeal deserves to be admitted by this Court. He submitted that even re- appreciation of evidence can be done in second appeal and on the substantial question of law formulated in the memo of appeal, the present appeal deserves to be admitted by this Court. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the following decisions in support of his submissions : (i) (2011) 1 SCC 158 , D.R. Rathna Murthy v. Ramappa (ii) 2009 (4) RLW 3484, Rishab Chand Bhandari v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. (iii) (2002) 5 SCC 440 , Rakesh Wadhwan & Ors. v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation (iv) (1997) 5 SCC 329 , Mahendra Raghunathdas Gupta v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul & Ors. 4. In the case of D.R. Rathna Murthy (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: 9. Undoubtedly, the High Court can interfere with the findings of fact even in the second appeal, provided the findings recorded by the Courts below are found to be perverse i.e. not being based on the evidence or contrary to the evidence on record or reasoning is based on surmises and misreading of the evidence on record or where the core issue is not decided. There is no absolute bar on the re-appreciation of evidence in those proceedings, however, such a course is permissible in exceptional circumstances." 5. in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LR's and Anr v. National Engineering Industry Ltd., reported in 2009 (4) RLW 3484 (SC) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: "The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rent statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641 . We approve of the view taken in the said decision. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal v. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641 . We approve of the view taken in the said decision. if we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner, who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given." 6. This Court has considered the aforesaid judgments and in the opinion of this Court, the aforesaid judgments do not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case and are of little help to the learned counsel for the appellant. 7. On the contrary, Mr. Karuna Nidhi Vyas, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-landlord submitted that in view of clear admission of the defendant- tenant in reply to the notice Ex.3 dated 3.8.1994, which is quoted below, there was nothing further required to be established for establishing the relationship of landlord and tenant between these parties and the eviction decree cannot be upset in the present second appeal as findings on bona fide necessity and material alteration are findings of facts based on cogent evidence and there is no substantial question of law which arises in the present appeal. " fdjk;s'kqnk ifjlj ckcr lekt ds LokfeRo ds vf/kdkj dks bUdkj djus ckcr dFku xyr vafdr fd;k gS esjk eqOofdy vkids O;ogkjh dk izkjEHk ls fdjk;snkj jgk gS vkt Hkh fdjk;snkj gSA ,oa Hkfo"; esa Hkh fdjk;snkj jgsxkA esjk eqofDdy vkids LokfeRo ds vf/kdkj dks Lohdkj djrk gS] vkids O;ogkjh dHkh Hkh fdlh Hkh le; vkdj lekt ds mijksDr ifjlj dk uki ys ldrs gS voyksdu dj ldrs gSA " 8. The learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Mahendra Raghunathdas Gupta v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul and ors. (supra), in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under : "A transferee of the landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. (supra), in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under : "A transferee of the landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord can take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by the tenant is not necessary to confer validity of the him. Attornment by the tenant is not necessary transfer of the landlord's rights. Since attornment by the tenant is not required a notice under Section 106 in terms of the old terms of lease by the transferor landlord would be proper and so also the suit for ejectment. Attornment would, however, be desirable as it means the acknowledgement of relation of a tenant to a new landlord. It also implies continuity of tenancy." 9. Having heard the learned counsel, this Court is of the opinion that there is no force in the present second appeal of the defendant-tenant and the same deserves to be dismissed. 10. Admission of the tenant in reply to the notice of landlord in Ex.3 upon instructions through advocate is in no uncertain or vague terms. It is categoric, specific and clear. Not only the title of the plaintiff has been accepted but his tenancy in the said premises has also been accepted, wherein he said that he is the tenant of this plaintiff right from the beginning till today also and will remain so in future also. The definition of 'landlord' does not require the landlord to be the owner of the property in question as even a person entitled to recent a rent can be of landlord as per the definition of Section 3(iii) of the Act reproduced above and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (supra). 11. There is no dispute that the plaintiff-Society is a society of a particular Shrimali Samaj and is manging the property of said section of society at Pali. There is neither any rival claim of anybody else in respect of the suit property belonging to the society nor it is the case of the defendant-tenant that the registered society i.e. the plaintiff was not managing the property of Shrimali Samaj at Pali. There is neither any rival claim of anybody else in respect of the suit property belonging to the society nor it is the case of the defendant-tenant that the registered society i.e. the plaintiff was not managing the property of Shrimali Samaj at Pali. On the contrary there is a clear admission of the defendant-tenant which was sought to be raised by the learned counsel upon reading of the aforesaid quoted portion of admission in Ex.3, which cannot really undo the said admission of the tenant. Since admittedly the question of title is not relevant in eviction matter, the plaintiff need not prove such title over the property of the society, which is a Registered Society. Even otherwise, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahendra Raghunathdas Gupta v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul and Ors., reported in (1997) 5 SCC 329 has clearly held that attornment by the tenant is not necessary though it is desirable. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the defendant that tenant had asked the plaintiff-society as to whom he should pay rent is of no consequences, once he admitted the relationship of landlord and tenancy between plaintiff-landlord and tenant in Ex.3. The findings of facts of bona fide necessity and material alteration and parting with possession of portion of the premises are not even seriously challenged before this Court and the sole question which was sought to be raised was right of the plaintiff-society to receive said rent and it not being the landlord of the said society, which question obviously is also not a substantial question of law and the question as raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is bound to be answered in negative and against the defendant-tenant. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises and there is no force in the present second appeal of the tenant and the same deserves to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the present second appeal is dismissed. The appellant shall handover 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 appellant shall also pay mesne profit @ Rs. 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 appellant shall also pay mesne profit @ Rs. 500/- per month from May, 2011. 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. *******