JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.08.2011 in appeal No.10/2011-Prahlad Rai Modi v. Gurudwara, Shri Guru Singh Sabha passed by learned Additional District Judge No.1, Hanumangarh, whereby he dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and decree dated 02.06.2007 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Hanumangarh in Civil Original Suit No. 11/2004, whereby he decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent in respect of suit premises. 3. Having heard learned counsels and upon perusal of impugned judgments and decree of the courts below, this Court finds no substantial question of law to be arising in the present second appeal of the defendant-tenant and both the courts below have rightly and concurrently decreed the suit for eviction in terms of Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act. The respondent-plaintiff has terminated the lease by serving notice dated 10.06.2002 (Ex.2) under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act. 4. Accordingly, the present second appeal of the appellant-defendant-tenant Prahlad Rai Modi is dismissed. No costs.The following order is accordingly passed by agreement between the parties and their counsels. 5. The appellant-defendant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property, the shop, in which the appellant-defendant is said to be carrying on his work of watch repair, to the respondent-plaintiff within a period of nine months from today viz. on or before 30.04.2013 and shall pay mesne profit Rs. 1,500/- per month commencing from July, 2012 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the respondent-plaintiff also till vacant possession is handed over to the respondent-plaintiff and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period of nine months for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit premises or any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and the same would be treated as void. The tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit premises or any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and the same would be treated as void. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within one month and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit shop is not handed over to the respondent-landlord within a period of nine months from today, besides execution of the decree in normal course, the respondent-plaintiff shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. 6. It is also agreed that in case the appellant-defendant approaches the respondent-plaintiff-Gurudwara, Shri Guru Singh Sabha for allotment of a similar area of shop after re-construction of Gurudwara and shop space by them again, they would sympathetically consider the same. A copy of this judgment be sent to the learned courts below forthwith.Appeal dismissed. *******