Hon'ble Dr. KOTHARI, J.—The present second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/defendants/tenants against the concurrent judgment and decree of eviction dated 17.09.2014 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.1, Bhilwara, in Civil First Appeal No.9/2014-M/s Kishanlal Shankar Lal & Ors. vs. Smt. Kushal Devi & Ors., whereby the appeal filed by the appellants/tenants was dismissed while affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 23.04.2014 of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Gangapur, District: Bhilwara, decreeing plaintiffs' suit for eviction being Suit No.50/2007- Smt. Kushal Devi & Ors. vs. M/s Kishan Lal Shankar Lal & Ors. Both the two courts below have granted eviction decree in favour of plaintiffs as the tenancy was terminated by the plaintiffs/landlord by serving valid notice under Section 106 of the Transport of Property Act, 1882. 2. vs. M/s Kishan Lal Shankar Lal & Ors. Both the two courts below have granted eviction decree in favour of plaintiffs as the tenancy was terminated by the plaintiffs/landlord by serving valid notice under Section 106 of the Transport of Property Act, 1882. 2. The relevant findings of the learned trail court are as under: - ^^pwafd fook|d la[;k 01 oknhx.k ds i{k esa r; fd;k x;k gSa o fook|d la;k 02 vkaf'kd :i ls en la-09 ds Øe esa oknhx.k ds i{k esa r; fd;k x;k gSa ,oa fook|d la-4 yxk;r 06 oknh ds i{k esa r; fd;s x;s gS rFkk fook|d la[;k 03 oknhx.k ds fo:) r; fd;k x;k gSa ,slh fLFkfr esa Hkh okn oknhx.k okafNr vuqrks"k gsrq izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS ,oa fdjk;k ifjlj rUgk [kkyh djk dctk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSa o vUr% dkyhu ykHk ds :i esa okn nk;jh ds i'pkr ls ifjlj [kkyh gksus rd 650 :i;s izfrekg ds fglkc ls izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS rFkk tek fdjk;k iwoZ fook|d esa fu/kkZj.k vuqlkj x.kuk esa lek;ksftr fd;k tkosxkA ;Fkk mäkuqlkj oknh dk okn fMØh fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA vkns'k Qyr% okn oknh fo:) izfroknhx.k ckcr~ [kkyh djkus nqdku o p<+k fdjk;k olwyh lO;; fuEu izdkj fMØh fd;k tkrk gS %& 1- izfroknhx.k }kjk oknhx.k dks fdjk;s'kqnk n`dku dks 01 ekg esa [kkyh dj rUgk dCtk lqiqnZ djsaxsA 2- oknhx.k izfroknhx.k ls nkok nk;jh ls fdjk;k ifjlj [kkyh gksus rd 650 :i;s izfrekg ds fglkc ls vUr%dkyhu ykHk mi;ksx o vf/kHkksx ds :i esa izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh Hkh gksxkA 3- izfroknhx.k }kjk ;fn dksbZ jkf'k nkok nk;jh ds i'pkr~ oknhx.k ds [kkrs esaa tek djkbZ xbz jkf'k mDr cdk;k jkf'k esa lek;ksftr djkus dk vf/kdkjh gksxk o e/; dh vof/k dh 'ks"k jkf'k oknhx.k izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSA vkns'kkuqlkj fMØh ipkZ eqfrZc fd;k tkosA ,l-Mh-@& flfoy U;k;k/kh'k ¼ofj"B [k.M½ xaxkiqj ¼HkhyokM+k½** 3. The first appeal filed by the appellants/defendants against the judgment and decree of the trial court was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Bhilwara vide judgment dated 17.09.2014 in the following manner: - ^^12- nksuksa i{kksa }kjk fn, x, mijksDr rdksZ ij fopkj djsa rks loZizFke bl U;k;ky; dks ;g ns[kuk gS fd D;k bl izdj.k esa /kkjk 106 lEifÙk vUrj.k vf/kfu;e ds izko/kku ykxw gksrs gS;k ugha\ jktLFkku esa fdjk;k fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 2001 ykxw gqvk gS] ftlds vuqlkj iwoZ esa ykxw fdjk;k fu;a=.k] 1950 lekIr gks pqdk gS ,oa u;k fdjk;k fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e dsoy ek= ftyk eq[;ky;ksa ij ykxw fd;k x;k gSA izdj.k esa oknxzLr nqdku xaxkiqj dLcs esa vkrh gS tks fd ftyk eq[;ky; ls fHkUu LFkku gS] tgka ij jktLFkku fdjk;k fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 2001 ds izko/kku ykxw ugha fd, x, gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa edku ekfyd vkSj fdjk;snkj ds e/; lEifÙk vUrj.k vf/kfu;e ds izko/kku gh ykxw gksrs gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa /kkjk 106 lEifÙk vUrj.k vf/kfu;e ds rgr fdjk;snkjh lekIr dh tk ldrh gSA 13- vc ;g ns[kuk gS fd D;k uksfVl izn'kZ 2 izfroknhx.k ds izkIr gqvk gS ;k ugha ,oa D;k uksfVl tkus esa /kkjk 106 lEifÙk vUrj.k vf/kfu;e dh ikyuk dh xbZ gS ;k ugha\ tgka rd uksfVl dh izkIr dk iz'u gS izfroknh us vius tokcnkos esa dgh Hkh ;g vafdr ugha fd;k gS fd mls uksfVl izkIr ugha gqvk gks cfYd dsoy ek= ;g vafdr fd;k gS fd uksfVl xyr o voS/k gSA oknhx.k dh vksj ls xokg ih-M-1 egs'k dqekj us vius 'kiFkiw.kZ c;kuksa esa dFku fd;k gS fd oknhx.k us vius vf/koDrk ds ekQZr fnukad 23-5-2007 dks ,d jftLVMZ uksfVl izfroknhx.k dks oknxzLr nqdku dh ekfld fdjk;snkjh f}rh; T;s"B cnh vekol lEor~ 2064 rn~uqlkj rkjh[k 15-6-2007 ls lekIr djus dk fnyk;k tks mudks izkIr gks pqdkA uksfVl dh udy izn'kZ 2 gSA izfroknhx.k us vius vf/koäk Jh egs'k nk/khp ls mDr uksfVl dk tokc fnukad 18-6-2007 dks fHktok;k] tks xyr fn;k gSA vr% oknh us viuh lk{; esa uksfVl fn, tkus dk rF; mYysf[kr fd;k gSA lkFk gh uksfVl izn'kZ 2 Hkh iznf'kZr djk;k gSA oknhx.k dh vksj ls uksfVl dh izkfIr Loh—fr dks izn'kZ 4] 6 o 8 ds :i esa iznf'kZr djkbZ xbZ gSA blds vykok izfroknhx.k dh vksj ls fn;k x;k tokc izn'kZ 9 ds :i esa iznf'kZr djk;k gSA izfroknhx.k ds xokg Mh-M-1 izdk'kpUnz us vius izfrijh{k.k esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd izn'kZ 2 uksfVl mls izkIr gqvk FkkA izn'kZ 4 ij , ls ch gLrk{kj eq>s fd'kuyky ds ugha yxrsA izn'kZ 8 ij , lh ch esjs gLrk{kj gSA izn'kZ 9 ij , ls ch gLrk{kj gekjs odhy egs'k th nk/khp ds gS] tks eSa igpkurk gwa] tks tokc lgh fy[kok;kA vr% mDr xokg Mh-M-1 izdk'kpUnz us uksfVl izkIr djuk o mldk tokcnsuk Lohdkj fd;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa ;g Li"V :i ls lkfcr gqvk gS fd uksfVl izfroknhx.k dks izkIr gqvk FkkA 21- tgka rd cdk;k fdjk;k jkf'k dh ekax dk iz'u gS] oknhx.k us vius okni= esa cdk;k fdjk;k jkf'k 14]300@& :i;s gksuk ekuk gS] ftls lkfcr djus dk Hkkj oknhx.k ij gh gSA vr% fook|d la- 3 dk fl)hHkkj oknhx.k ij j[ks tkus esa v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk dkuwu dh dksbZ =qfV ugha dh xbZ gSA izfroknhx.k us vius tokc esa ;g dgk gS fd izfroknhx.k us le; le; ij fdjk;k vnk fd;kA blds vykok izfroknh QeZ ls oknh la-2 us diM+k [kjhndj izkIr fd;k] ftldk ys[kk izfroknh dh cfg;ksa esa gSA vr% fdjk;k jkf'k iw.kZ :i ls vnk dh tk pqdh Fkh o vfxze fdjk;k Hkh vnk fd;k x;k FkkA ;g dsoy ek= oknh ds mDr cdk;k fdjk;k olwyh ds vfHkopu dk mÙkj gSA ,slk dksbZ cdk;k fdjk;k gskus dk rF; lkfcr djus dk Hkkj oknh ij gh j[kuk fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us lgh :i ls ekuk gSA bl fook|d ds fuLrkj.k esa v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us ;g ekuk gS fd oknh egs'k dqekj us izfroknh QeZ ls 15930@& :i;s fdjk;s isVs fnukad 3-11-2005 ds i'pkr~ izkIr fd, rFkk pwafd mDr nLrkostksa ij oknh egs'k ds gLrk{kj gS vFkkZr~ izfroknhx.k us fdjk;k vnk;xh esa fMQkYV ugha fd;kA bl izdj.k esa tks nLrkosth lk{; izLrqr gqbZ gS] mlesa Li"V :i ls nLrkostksa esa oknh egs'k dqekj ds gLrk{kj gS ftldk dgha Hkh dksbZ [k.Mu oknhx.k us ugha fd;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk fook|d la-3 ds laca/k esa fn;k x;k fu.kZ; fof/kiw.kZ gS ftldh iqf"V dh tkrh gSA ---------- vkns'k 29- vr% vihykFkhZx.k@izfroknhx.k }kjk izLrqr ;g vihy rFkk izR;FkhZx.k@ oknhx.k }kjk izLrqr ØkWl vkWCtsD'ku ,rn~}kjk [kkfjt fd, tkdj fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; o fMØh fnukafdr 23-4-2014 dh iqf"V dh tkrh gSA vihy dk [kpkZ nksuksa i{k viuk viuk ogu djsaxsA rn~uqlkj fMØh ipkZ cuk;k tkosA fu.kZ; o fMØh dh izfr lfgr v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dh i=koyh vfoyEc fHktokbZ tkosA ,l-Mh-@& vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k la[;k 1] HkhyokM+k ¼jkt-½ f'kfoj xaxkiqj** 4. Mr. S.D. Vyas, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submitted that since the Issue No.2 about there being no default on the part of the defendants in payment of arrears of rent was decided in favour of defendants, therefore, Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, was attracted and the eviction decree could not be given upon forfeiture of the alleged arrears in payment of rent as the lease subsisted. He relied upon the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of R.S. Lala Pradhuman Kumar vs. Virendra Goyal (D) by his LR's & Ors. reported in AIR 1969 SC 1349 , in which the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 7 has held as under:- “In terms, Section 114 makes payment of rent at the hearing of the suit in ejectment a condition of the exercise of the Court's jurisdiction but an appeal being a rehearing of the suit, in appropriate cases it is open to the appellate court at the hearing of the appeal to relieve the tenant in default against forfeiture. Passing of a decree in ejectment against the tenant by the court of First Instance does not take away the jurisdiction of the appellate Court to grant equitable relief.” 5. On the other hand, Mr. Darshan Jain, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Nirmala Devi (Smt.) & Ors. vs. Smt. Tulsi Devi reported in 2013(1) DNJ (Raj.) 35 = 2013(1) RLW 803, in which this Court held that upon termination of lease/tenancy by proper service of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the status of the defendant converts into that of a trespasser and encroachee and occupation in the suit premises cannot be said to be valid under the lease agreement in question and therefore, irrespective of deciding of Issues No.1, 2 and 3 in favour of defendants-appellants, the decree of eviction was upheld by this Court. The relevant para 14 of the said judgment is quoted herein below: “14. Upon termination of the lease/tenancy by proper service of notice under Section 106 of the T.P. Act, status of the lessee/tenant converts into that of a trespasser and encroachee and occupation in the suit premises cannot be said to be valid under the lease agreement in question. The relevant para 14 of the said judgment is quoted herein below: “14. Upon termination of the lease/tenancy by proper service of notice under Section 106 of the T.P. Act, status of the lessee/tenant converts into that of a trespasser and encroachee and occupation in the suit premises cannot be said to be valid under the lease agreement in question. Therefore, irrespective of deciding of Issues No.1, 2 and 3 in favour of defendants-appellants and against the plaintiff-landlady and that the plaintiff failed to establish that monthly rent was Rs.2300/-per month but it was only Rs.1800/- per month, does not invalidate the eviction decree based on the Notice to Quit Ex.3 dated 01.08.2003. For the same reason, the other contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants-defendants that annual rent being less than Rs.25,000/-, it would deprive the learned District Judge to try the said eviction suit, is liable to be rejected. The suit was filed as per the claim of the plaintiff above Rs.25,000/-, which in the absence of the same being proved, has been decided in favour of defendants that the rent as per rent-note would come to Rs.1800/- per month only but that does not take away the jurisdiction of the learned trial court of A.D.J. and this contention of the learned counsel for the appellants-defendants-tenants is also liable to be rejected and the same is accordingly rejected. The contentions that the plaintiff herself did not appear in the witness box and her only and power of attorney holder, namely, Vijay Kular was examined and, therefore, eviction is not justified is also equally devoid of merits in view of validity of the Notice to terminate the lease/tenancy having been upheld, this contention is of no consequence. Hence, the same is also rejected.” 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the judgments and decree of both the courts below, this Court is of the opinion that no substantial questions of law arises in the present second appeal of the defendant/tenant. Hence, the same is also rejected.” 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the judgments and decree of both the courts below, this Court is of the opinion that no substantial questions of law arises in the present second appeal of the defendant/tenant. The reliance on the relevant provisions of Section 114 of the T.P. Act and the judgment cited at bar by the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants is misplaced because even if the issue of forfeiture of arrears of rent has been decided in favour of appellants/tenant, the trial court has granted the decree of eviction after expiry of period of tenancy, has been upheld upon service of notice under Section 106 of the T.P. Act as held in the case of Nirmala Devi (Smt.) (supra) and once the Issue No.1 regarding valid service of notice is decided concurrently by the two courts below in favour of respondents/plaintiffs, Section 114 of the T.P. Act cannot be invoked to upset the eviction decree, which has been granted for all other issues decided in favour of respondents/plaintiffs. 7. Since, the question of validity of the notice terminating the lease has already been decided in favour of plaintiff-respondent by trial court and said findings have been upheld by first appellate as well as this Court for the aforesaid reasons, the eviction decree passed by the learned court below deserves to be upheld and the present first appeal filed by the defendants-appellants is liable to be dismissed. The same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 8. The appellants/defendants/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the respondents-plaintiffs within a period of three months from today i.e. on or before 30.04.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2000/- per month commencing from March, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the respondents/plaintiffs also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period of three months for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellants/defendants/tenants shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the respondents/plaintiffs within three months from today, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellants/defendants/tenants shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the respondents/plaintiffs within three months from today, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellants/tenants shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop 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 if it is so done, the same would be treated as void. The appellants-defendants 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 premises is not handed over to the respondent-plaintiff within a period of three months from today i.e. on or before 30.04.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the respondents-plaintiffs shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and both the parties forthwith.